Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 25 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The President of the Board of Trade was asked—

Energy Policy

Mr. Jim Cunningham: When she expects her Department's review of energy policy to be completed. [45049]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The review of energy sources for power generation is expected to reach conclusions soon, and we shall announce those conclusions in due course.

Mr. Cunningham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her approach to the whole question of energy. This Government are looking for a long-term policy for energy, whereas the previous Government were very much about the short term. As my right hon. Friend carries out her review, will she bear in mind the fact that the mining industry needs a fair and level playing field? When is the review due to be completed?

Mrs. Beckett: I hope that it will be very soon indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is entirely right to say that the mining industry, and indeed energy policy as a whole, needs a level playing field in which there is fair competition so that the consumer gets the maximum benefit. Of course, that is not what we inherited from the Conservative party.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents in Shoreham, where a development for a gas-fired power station in Shoreham harbour is blocked by the Government's refusal to issue a section 14 consent, that that consent will be issued as soon as possible, because

the development is in any case on the site of the previous power station and will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the area?

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the review which, as soon as it is possible to do so, will be put before the House. I have heard his comments about the position in his locality, and he will know that the Government have always said that they will consider every circumstance carefully.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the President of the Board of Trade ensure that there is an early announcement, because the current coal contracts run out on 30 June? Despite reports to the contrary, will she ensure that the coal industry gets fairness, not favours, and has the ability to compete over the long term with other industrial sectors?

Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's long track record of work in this area. I share his view that it is vital for Britain's long-term future that we have a fair and level playing field and that we take a long-term strategic view of energy sources and resources. I assure my hon. Friend that that has motivated the Government throughout the review.

Mr. Tim Boswell: In this climate, in which Ministers have to deliver at least one leak a day, can the President of the Board of Trade help us a bit with her conclusions? Will she tell the House whether, in an effort to save up to 5,000 mining jobs, she is prepared to put at risk many billions of pounds of investment, and the construction jobs that go with them, and to risk the effect that it would have on energy prices for the consumer? If she does decide after all to go for the pro-mining option, does she feel confident that the Government can meet their Kyoto obligations and their even more stringent domestic emissions targets?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that you would be the first to object, Madam Speaker, if I were to take the step urged on me by the hon. Gentleman—which, of course, is not a course that I ever follow—of leaking things in advance, and especially leaking things before a statement is made to the House. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman not to take too seriously many of the things that he reads. I have seen entirely contradictory as well as quite extraordinary suggestions about the conclusions that might be in the Government's review. Certainly the Government are mindful of employment considerations in respect of energy and of the environmental considerations that lie behind the Kyoto targets. All these will be taken into account. The Conservatives left such a mess that it is taking time and proving even more difficult than we had feared to clear the situation up and come to conclusions in our review.

Airbus A3XX

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What is the forecast United Kingdom content of the proposed Airbus A3XX; and what assistance she is giving to British Aerospace to aid its development. [45051]

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Government have already had preliminary discussions with British Aerospace and its Airbus partners about the planned development of the A3XX. Any application for launch investment for the project will be considered on its merits.

Mr. Prentice: That is heartening news. I pay tribute to the Government for the help that they have given to Rolls-Royce for the development of the Trent engine and for Airbus. Is my hon. Friend aware that, over the next 20 years, passenger air traffic is expected to increase by a factor of three? The Airbus A3XX will carry 650 passengers in double-decker fashion. We need larger, quieter aircraft. That is another reason why the Government should support British Aerospace in developing the new aircraft.

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend, who has a track record of championing the industry on behalf of his constituents. We are well aware of the prestige and value of the project, which will take the industry much further forward technologically. It is too early to forecast sensibly the possible UK content of Airbus development, but there are major potential benefits for UK industry and I hope that our companies will be well represented in the project.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Although it may be too early to forecast the UK content, is it not the case that, the more substantial the British launch aid, the more likely it is that British Aerospace and other British companies will have a significant share of the work on the aircraft? The A3XX is the only gap in the full range of aircraft offered by Airbus to the civil market that remains to be filled. Will the Government look more favourably on any application for the A3XX than on any for the future large aircraft?

Mr. Battle: Requests for proposals on the future large aircraft have been issued to Airbus, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Alenia of Italy and Flabel of Belgium on a provisional basis, pending the formation of the Airbus military company. Any application for launch investment for the A3XX will be considered on its merits, subject to rigorous appraisal and monitoring to ensure that projects do not undertake or duplicate work that could be done elsewhere. No one is in any doubt about the significance of the project.

Mr. Barry Jones: Some 3,600 of my constituents make the wings for all European models of the Airbus family and they hope to make the wings for the new super jumbo jet. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when he visited the factory in my constituency on Monday, he saw a modern, progressive, productive and loyal work force? They appreciated the ceremony that he carried out.

Mr. Battle: I was particularly impressed by the technical excellence of the work of the internationally competitive, leading-edge work force. That is encouraging. Airbus already provides £1 billion a year to the UK's trade balance, representing 1·5 per cent. of UK manufactured exports. We are doing well in that manufacturing sector and we hope to continue to do well for many years.

Mr. David Chidgey: I am sure that the Minister realises that this is wider than a

single-constituency issue, although I cannot fail to mention Aerostructures Hamble, which does a magnificent job overseas in the same markets. The British aerospace industry has a record of high added value and high skills, putting it among the leaders in British manufacturing. It is a world-class industry. Exports account for 75 per cent. of the production of our aerospace industry. That has been achieved through long-term investment over the past 30 or 40 years. Is the Minister aware that, over the past 15 years, the Government's partnership investment in the industry has declined to a fraction of the levels known in the 1980s? Does he agree that, if that continues, in 10 years' time we shall be in the sorry state of having no British ownership of the aerospace industry? What will he do about it?

Mr. Battle: To some extent, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We do not want to be complacent. We want to ensure that there are skills to back up the industry and that there is private sector investment in the long term. All I would add is that the Government agreed public-private partnerships with British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce that were worth £320 million of investment last year. That is not an insubstantial investment to move the industry forward.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously launch aid is important. The world needs this generation of aircraft. I hope that the Government will back it and look favourably on the military version of the Airbus for the FLA.

Mr. Battle: As I commented in answer to an earlier question, the requests for proposals have been issued. The formation of the Airbus military company is pending. The Government are discussing with our partners when requests for proposals will be issued to potential suppliers under, of course, competitive arrangements. A procurement decision will be made in the light of the conclusions of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend's points were clearly made and will be taken on board, along with those of other colleagues.

Bribery

Mr. Hugh Bayley: If she will make a statement about combating bribery in international trade. [45053]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): The Government played a leading role in bringing negotiations on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development bribery convention to a successful conclusion in December. We are playing an active part in the negotiations that are under way on anti-corruption measures in the European Union and the Council of Europe. We are determined to combat bribery in international trade. Corruption distorts competition and constitutes an unfair barrier to trade.

Mr. Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree with Adair Turner of the Confederation of British Industry, who said:
Corruption's become a big issue because it just costs business so much more these days"?
Will the Government examine the arguments for amending the law, as proposed by the Law Commission, to provide for the prosecution of United Kingdom citizens when they commit offences of bribery abroad?

Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining the need both to clarify the statute on corruption and to bring up to date anti-corruption legislation. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention.

Sir Sydney Chapman(Chipping Barnet): Has the Minister estimated bribery and corruption by British companies abroad or, indeed, British personnel who work for foreign companies or multinationals—if, indeed, there is any? What powers do the Government really have to stop foreign personnel or foreign companies indulging in bribery and corruption? I know that we all want an end to it.

Mr. Griffiths: That is why we played our part in negotiations on the OECD bribery convention. I am not aware of any reliable estimates of the cost of bribery, which I know the whole House will condemn as anti-competitive and corrosive to the countries or their enterprises which may seek to offer bribes and to those who choose to take them.

Automotive Industry

Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): If she will make a statement about the future prospects for the automotive industry. [45055]

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Car production in Britain is increasing. This year alone, we have had announcements from Rover, Toyota and Honda, involving approximately £1 billion of new investment and creating more than 2,700 new jobs. In addition, Vauxhall's recent announcement that Luton will be one of the manufacturing locations for the replacement Vectra model should safeguard 4,000 jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Do he and the rest of the Department of Trade and Industry accept my heartfelt thanks, and those of the whole work force, for their efforts to ensure the long-term future of Vauxhall, Luton? Is he aware, however, that there is a skills gap in some parts of the automotive and engineering industries? Will he outline what measures he intends to take to ensure the on-going competitiveness of plants such as Vauxhall and the automotive industry generally?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of her constituents. She is in regular contact with the Department and often brings her constituents in to meet representatives of the Department; they should be well pleased by her activities on their behalf. I take the skills gap seriously. My Department is working with the industry to identify such gaps, and we work with other Departments, including the Department for Education and Employment, to ensure that the training and skills needed to back up the industry are available. We work in

partnership with industry in trying to identify its needs, especially in the metal industries, because we want to ensure that traditional skills are not squeezed out at precisely the same time as there is expansion in the industry. Britain currently has a productive and competitive car industry and we do not want it to be jeopardised by a lack of skilled labour.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the damage done to the British automotive industry by unfair pricing practices and differentials and by the difficulty of making parallel imports to this country, which leads to higher prices in this country than elsewhere? Is he monitoring the impact on the automotive industry of the designs directive, especially the repairs article? That will impose a monopoly on spare parts for up to seven years, which will have damaging effects on the entire industry in this country.

Mr. Battle: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Action against anti-competitive behaviour elsewhere in Europe is a matter for the European Commission. We welcome both the action which has been taken and the current active discussions, because we do not want our industry to be priced out unfairly. We have a strong industry: the UK is the fourth-largest car manufacturer in Europe, with eight international companies, and the sector employs 719,000 people. It is a major sector of our economy, so we do not want unfair competition to undermine it.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I am sure that it was an oversight, but my hon. Friend did not mention the substantial investment by Ford in producing the new executive Jaguar at its Castle Bromwich plant in my constituency. I hope that he will find time to visit the plant in October, when it goes into pre-production. Will he say a word about the efforts made by Jaguar and other motor manufacturers to meet the properly tough and even more stringent emissions standards? What progress is being made by the group chaired by Ian McAllister of Ford?

Mr. Battle: Our Department participated in the setting up of the cleaner vehicles task force precisely to address that matter and to work towards ensuring that cars and other vehicles have a low environmental impact. The task force programme has been developed in partnership with the industry. I did not mention the Jaguar investment—£400 million in the new medium saloon car, the X200, which is to be produced in my hon. Friend's constituency—but that is because the sector is so productive and so much investment is going into it that, had I read out the whole list, you would have ruled me out of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Christopher Chope: How is the Minister's support for the car industry consistent with the Government's general approach towards the car and motorists? The Government have imposed about £9 billion of extra taxes on motorists and a new £25 first registration tax on every new car sold, yet the Minister purports to be in favour of the car industry. Will he tell his colleagues in the Department of the Environment,


Transport and the Regions that, if we have cleaner, safer and more fuel-efficient cars, there is nothing wrong with having more of them?

Mr. Battle: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box after a period of absence, I seem to recall that the last time I crossed swords with him over the Dispatch Box was when I was an Opposition spokesman and the hon. Gentleman was the champion of the poll tax. However, I welcome him back, even though I cannot pretend always to agree with his analyses. The car industry itself is talking about low environmental impact and wants to contribute to our environmental targets. We see no contradiction in having environmental targets and an industry that works to match them to ensure cleaner air in our towns and cities.

Foresight Programme

Dr. Ian Gibson: What progress is being made on the foresight programme. [45057]

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The aim of the foresight programme is to develop a practical vision of the future challenges, opportunities and needs and identify means of reaching them. It was set up by the previous Administration and we are working with the grain of the programme to use it as a catalyst for action. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade initiated a full audit of foresight activities across Government. In response, I called together a group of Ministers responsible for foresight from all Departments to provide top-level co-ordination throughout Whitehall and to drive the programme forward in Government.

Dr. Gibson: The foresight programme is clearly important for driving bridges between industry and the science base. How are Government Departments using the results of foresight to form their strategies in relation to research programmes?

Mr. Battle: Previously, the purpose of the foresight panels, which were set up in 1994, was to tackle the relationship between industry and academia. We have moved the programme in-house and, on 16 June, the President of the Board of Trade published the first full interdepartmental progress report, spelling out how each Department is getting involved in the programme. I referred earlier to the cleaner vehicles project, which is headed up by our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and is one example of the way in which foresight will be carried into Departments to knit into the themes that are their concerns. There is a connection between Departments through the ministerial foresight group, so that the theme of foresight can be brought into our principles, practices and ideas for future action as a Government.

Rev. Martin Smyth(Belfast, South: ): Does the Minister accept that there have in the past been complaints from industry that, although it was moving forward, the Government were lagging? Does the recent audit state that the Government are keeping pace with industry in the foresight plans?

Mr. Battle: The idea is to work together. In March, we launched a full consultation on the next stage of foresight,

to find out where it would go. We spelled out key themes, including sustainable development, future cities, crime control, skills training and the shortages emerging there, as well as consideration of aging. We have put those topics forward for consultation with industry to ensure that the Government and industry keep together. That is part of an exercise to tackle the themes together, listening to the needs of industry, recognising the potential of academic research and ensuring that we translate ideas into practical action—into products and processes that deliver an improved quality of life and new jobs, as well as generating wealth.

Low Pay Commission

Mr. David Watts: If she will make a statement about the work of the Low Pay Commission. [45058]

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement to the House later this afternoon. The Low Pay Commission presented its recommendations on the national minimum wage to the Government on 27 May. The Government are grateful to the commission for its report and recommendations. The national minimum wage, along with other measures such as the working families tax credit, is part of a strategy to make work pay.

Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and look forward to hearing the full statement from the President of the Board of Trade later. Does he agree that the introduction of minimum pay will start to end poverty pay? Does he also agree that the Conservative party has a lot to be held accountable for, bearing in mind the fact that the Conservative Government delivered low pay and low skills to Britain and that this Government are trying to change that process in the short period of 12 months?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, I must tell him that I have not yet been made right honourable, but I will pass his suggestion on to the Prime Minister—that was a joke.
I will feel great pride and achievement when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gets up at 3.30 pm. When she finishes her statement, the only people in Britain who will be losers are Conservative right hon. and hon. Members who, even at this late stage, still oppose the principle of a national minimum wage. Wherever one is in Britain, they have left us the legacy of a huge level of low-paid, unskilled, undignified labour. My right hon. Friend's statement at 3.30 pm will start the process of changing that for ever.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman, in again coming to the Dispatch Box and ranting on in the way we all love, clearly has sight of what will be announced at 3.30 pm—it will not fulfil his commitments to the House and to his hon. Friends. Has he written his letter of resignation yet, as he clearly will not be able to stand there and look us in the eye on this matter?

Mr. McCartney: I will stand on a box at any time and look the hon. Gentleman in the eye. I can see only one


person in the Chamber today who went to a Prime Minister to resign—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The difference is that, when I see my Prime Minister, I always come out with agreement. He did not, and look at him now—a mere shadow of his former self.

Sterling

Mr. David Kidney: What assessment she had made of the impact of the current strength of sterling on the competitiveness of United Kingdom exports. [45059]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government understand exporters' concerns about the level of sterling and appreciate the difficulties that it is causing them. However, the level of sterling is not the only factor affecting the competitiveness of UK exports. In particular, business needs a stable macro-economic environment in which it can make long-term decisions. We are working in partnership with business to improve that and all aspects of British competitiveness.

Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Two weeks ago, I attended the first of a series of briefings at the Foreign Office, jointly hosted by the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, for Members of Parliament and representatives of exporters in their constituencies. The presentations that evening were excellent, especially those by the exporters, large and small, and I was left with the distinct impression that the support services for our exporters are first class. However, it was no surprise when one of the exporters raised the question of the strong pound, asking, "How are we expected to win contracts abroad when our competitors have a price advantage simply because of the differences in the value of national currencies?" How can my right hon. Friend and her Department best help British exporters to be competitive in such a climate?

Mrs. Beckett: I, too, have had many similar conversations with people in the business community, particularly exporters. They are aware of the Government's view that a stable and competitive exchange rate is what will be most beneficial to them in the long term; they are also aware that we have taken steps that we—and, indeed, the markets—believe will produce such an outcome. Of course we all recognise that, in the short term, the level of sterling can cause problems, although its effect, as shown in the trade figures, is more patchy than one might expect.
Our competitor countries have undergone similar experiences of a strong currency, in some cases for many years. We believe that the best way to tackle exchange rate problems is to strive to compete on the basis of quality, as our competitor countries did. That is what the Government continually urge British business to do in any case, as we believe that it will produce the best outcome for Britain in the long term.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not both extraordinary and encouraging that, at a time when many of the most successful exporting countries are desperately anxious about the weakening of their currencies,

we should be more concerned about the strength of ours? Is that not an enormous endorsement of the great success of the previous Government's policies?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman arrives at the conclusion in his final sentence. I certainly agree that, in the past, people have bemoaned the weakness of sterling—it is always a moot point whether a high or a low exchange rate is good or bad. Given what I know to be the breadth of his experience, however, I think that he is likely to share the view that a stable exchange rate is often the most beneficial, as it enables business to plan for the long term—we are certainly working to achieve that.

Mr. Derek Foster: A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend intervened speedily and decisively to win 350 extra jobs in my constituency at Black and Decker, a world-class manufacturer and exporter, but is not she a little worried that the present excessive reliance on interest rates is undermining what I assume would be her preferred economic strategy of growth being driven by exports and investment rather than consumption?

Mrs. Beckett: It has certainly been the aim of successive Governments to achieve growth driven by investments and exports. We take the view that our policies will, in the long term, bring about such an outcome. We are continually working with the business community, and we held discussions at a series of seminars, co-sponsored by the Treasury and ourselves, to try to deal with the long-seated problems that the previous Government so plainly failed to overcome.

Mr. John Redwood: The President of the Board of Trade is quite right to say that high sterling is not the only threat to jobs and businesses in manufacturing. Wage inflation is up; taxes are massively up; regulatory costs, imposed by the Government, are up; interest rates are up; and, yes, sterling is up as well. What is her Department's forecast of the likely number of job losses in steel, automotive development, textiles and all the main areas of manufacturing in the next couple of years?
We left all those industries in good heart after the recession of the 1990s, but the Government's policies are destroying them. The Government are losing control of the economy and doing enormous damage to manufacturing. They are creating not stability, but bust in manufacturing and an inflationary boom in everything else.

Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, if industry had been in as good heart as he says, he would be on the Government, not the Opposition, Benches. The picture that he presents is not one that anyone would recognise. We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed in some parts of manufacturing about interest rates, but we inherited a legacy of inflationary pressures and of failure to raise interest rates when it would have been right to do so, in the run-up to the general election. We hope and believe that, over time, we shall be able to overcome that legacy.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is not the real task for British industry to become world class? We need


more world-class companies. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce spent three or four years designing a working toolkit for tomorrow's company. Is it not about time that we gave it a hand to ensure that every small, medium and large enterprise can implement that toolkit, becoming innovative and successful in exporting?

Mrs. Beckett: I know of the tremendous amount of work that my hon. Friend has done, including in some cross-party groups in the House, to promote the cause of British companies and manufacturing. I certainly agree that it is enormously important to continue to discuss what can be done to improve competitiveness and to encourage people in businesses large and small to learn from each other, to benchmark the best and to spread understanding of what will best promote the competitiveness of individual companies and hence of Britain as a whole, and I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

Part-time Workers Directive

9. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): If she will make a statement on the implementation of the part-time workers directive. [45060]

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The directive was extended to the United Kingdom on 7 April. We now have two years to implement it. During that period, we shall consider the options for how best to do so and, in particular, to ensure that both employers and employees enjoy the benefits of the directive and that the status of part-time jobs is improved. We intend to consult extensively on the best way of achieving that.

Mr. Brady: Is it the Minister's view that the terms of the directive should apply equally to casual workers as to other part-time workers, and, if so, has he made any assessment of the likely cost in casual jobs?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman raised the same point in the Education and Employment Sub-Committee, on 1 June, when I made it clear that the directive has the potential to cover forms of casual work. The most important point about the directive is that 90 per cent. of employers have already expressed support for the principle of ensuring flexibility in business through part-time working. In addition, part-time work gives flexibility to many workers, including those who have child responsibilities, and gives them the opportunity to continue to make a contribution to an enterprise. The directive will assist competitiveness and provide good employment rights and standards in the workplace.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not the Government's implementation of the directive a clear message that the Labour Government believe that the growing number of part-time workers are entitled to fair conditions, while the Conservatives could not care less about their conditions?

Mr. McCartney: When we got rid of the previous Government, second-class citizenship for part-time workers went with them. Every worker in Britain will now have the same rights. There will be no more

second-class citizens. We want people to make a contribution to the United Kingdom economy, and we shall ensure that they do.

Small and Medium Businesses

Miss Melanie Johnson: What steps she is taking to promote innovation in United Kingdom small and medium enterprises. [45061]

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Department is committed to the promotion of innovation, particularly within small and medium companies. On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade launched the 1998 round of "Smart", the grants scheme for innovation and development in small firms. Many more of the Department's schemes, such as the teaching company scheme, also operate in that area. Innovation and technology counsellors in business links also have an important role in enabling small and medium enterprises to innovate.

Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. May I tell her that Otodynamics, a company in Hatfield, recently won the Queen's award for technological achievement for its portable equipment for testing the hearing of small babies? That equipment can be used in many locations around the world because no computer or other equipment is needed. It was produced by a company begun by a husband and wife a few years ago, in conjunction with University college, London. Will my hon. Friend comment on how we can promote further projects that are likely to lead to worldwide success in technological development among small businesses? How can we promote further the use of our universities to support and help such development?

Mrs. Roche: I congratulate the business mentioned by my hon. Friend, which is a good example of what can be done when the barriers between business, finance and the academic and science side are broken down, and when the transfer of technology is encouraged. The Government are examining this area, believing that small and medium businesses, especially in the high-tech sector, have the ability to win for Britain. We are working closely with universities, financial institutions and businesses.

Mr. John Bercow: In seeking to promote innovation in small and medium enterprises, does the Under-Secretary agree that the European Commission's proposals for bureaucratic national works councils for companies with as few as 50 employees will offer no help to those companies, and could be a great hindrance to them? Does the hon. Lady agree that, when the President of the Board of Trade was challenged by John Humphrys on how she would cope with the Commission, her response of, "Well, er, we shall see how things go," was spectacularly feeble?

Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I have heard the same tired old rhetoric from him before. He cannot answer the points that regulation increased under the previous Conservative Government, and that it is the Labour Government who have sought to tackle excessive regulation. The hon. Gentleman will


recall that, during the UK presidency of the European Union, we set up the Best committee, chaired by the well-known British entrepreneur Chris Evans, who has dealt with cutting back European regulation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to congratulate the Government on our achievement.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that mining areas now rely on small and medium businesses to create well-paid jobs; the Tory Government destroyed the mining industry and well-paid jobs? Will she do all that she can to help small and medium enterprises in Yorkshire and Humberside to develop science and technology, so that skilled and well-paid jobs can return to our area?

Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend that small and medium enterprises are a good example of things that are helping to regenerate areas where industries have disappeared and new industries are coming in. What is good about those high-growth, high-skilled industries is that they are based on the skills that are in those communities in abundance. We shall do all that we can to support those industries, and I am delighted that recent polls show that the small business community is feeling very confident about what this Government have achieved so far.

Sterling

Mr. Bob Russell: What steps she is taking to safeguard jobs in manufacturing industry to take account of the current strength of sterling. [45062]

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government recognise the difficulties that are created for exporters and manufacturers by a strong pound. The Bank of England has taken those into account in deciding the level of interest rates, and the whole purpose of the Government's strategy is to deliver a stable macro-economic framework in which business will be better able to plan and to secure competitiveness for the long term. Ultimately, however, our ability to compete in world markets depends on Britain producing high-quality goods and services. We are working in partnership with business to develop measures that promote the competitiveness of British firms and we shall publish a White Paper in the autumn.

Mr. Russell: In the real world, there will be a feeling that that was a somewhat complacent response, as was the right hon. Lady's response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). Would the President of the Board of Trade care to comment on the fact that, this month in my constituency, Paxman Diesels had to make 10 per cent. of its work force redundant? We all know what happened under the previous Government, but many of us were hoping that a change of Government would lead to better things. Discussions with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence in relation to the placing of orders would benefit Paxman Diesels, as would discussions with the privatised railway industry, where orders for locomotives seem to be lacking. Discussions between the President of the Board of Trade and other members of the Government might help my constituents.

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware, as I expect that the hon. Gentleman is, that the diesel industry has been undergoing

difficulties for some years. I share his view that part of the aftermath of the long-drawn-out privatisation of rail was a dearth of orders of a variety of kinds in the manufacturing industry, which affected my constituency as well as his. I assure him that I am in continual contact with colleagues who deal with other policy areas that impinge on those matters. We are all anxious to see British manufacturing succeed and we do work with such companies to try to achieve that.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the simple truth that, if we had not tightened the fiscal stance—if we had followed the policies of Conservative Members—we would have had a higher exchange rate and higher interest rates?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is, as so often, entirely right.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Earlier this week in my constituency, one of the most modern and efficient saw mills in the country made an entire shift redundant due to difficulties that had been caused by the level of sterling. In reply to an earlier question, the President of the Board of Trade said that what was necessary was stability in exchange rates. Would she be happy with exchange rates being stable at their current level? Is that what she seeks?

Mrs. Beckett: No. If the hon. Gentleman will recall, what I said was that the Government would like stable and competitive exchange rates but, of course, difficulties do arise from time to time and no one is more concerned than Labour Members when, as a result, people lose the opportunity of employment. However, it is our determination and wish to make this economy more competitive. That, in the long run, is to the benefit of all.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the President accept that, when manufacturing industry is struggling with the higher taxes, higher sterling and higher wage inflation that she will do nothing about, it should at least be able to expect stability from the DTI on regulations and competition law? Is she aware that her original Competition Bill produced much fear and diversion of effort in industry? While the Opposition welcome the four fundamental concessions that Ministers have made to improve the legislation, it is still wrong. Will she look again at this muddled and meddlesome Bill to help give industry more certainty? Above all, will she consider the absence of teeth against monopolies and public sector activity that is another extraordinary feature of the Bill and that will not help business to become more competitive against this miserable background for industry?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry—I almost interrupted the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He accused me of being responsible for higher wage inflation that I would do nothing about. Wage settlements are very much a matter for employers in manufacturing and outside. I am interested that he thinks that the Government should be doing something about them. I look forward to hearing more. On the Competition Bill, I am never sure whether he is mischievous or just incompetent. If he paid attention to the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and in


another place, he must know that the amendments to which he referred were flagged up by the Government and that we had said that they would need to be made from the beginning. Indeed, he has been complaining about the absence of some of them for weeks.

Public Sector Workers

Dr. Brian Iddon: How many groups of public sector workers, when dismissed unfairly, cannot appeal to an industrial tribunal. [45063]

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Public sector employees with a contract of employment are generally able to complain of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal, subject to any qualifying period of continuous employment that may apply. Groups in the public sector who cannot do so include members of the armed forces and office holders who are not employees, including those in the police and the registration services.

Dr. Iddon: I declare an interest as the unremunerated patron of the National Society of Registration Officers. I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he consider correcting, in liaison with the Economic Secretary, who is responsible for registration officers, the anomaly whereby registration officers cannot go to an industrial tribunal when dismissed? The registrar-general himself appears to favour reform.

Mr. McCartney: We want a system of fairness, transparency, clear standards of decision making and proper redress. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider the matter with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary in the positive context in which he approached it.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Minister confirm that people in the public sector, in addition to being able to go to industrial tribunals, can usually go to the Civil Service Appeal Board? Will he seek to ensure that, when the board recommends that a person be reinstated, that person is reinstated and the recommendation not ignored, as appears to have happened in several institutions, particularly the Prison Service?

Mr. McCartney: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot go into individual cases. An independent assessment is made of disputes and that should remain independent of ministerial responsibility.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What assessment she has made of which Government policies have had the greatest impact on the balance of trade position since 1 May 1997. [45064]

The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government want to create the right environment to ensure that British business can thrive in both domestic and overseas markets. The most important steps that we have taken to create that framework are those to implement a new framework for macro-economic policy to secure long-term stability

on the basis of low inflation and sound public finances. That should generate growth, provide employment and help trade.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The fact is that, since the Government came to power, the balance of trade has suffered a sharp and steepening decline. Does the hon. Lady not realise that the Government's high taxes have been the spur to higher wage costs and the Government's higher interest rates have cut the sort of investment that raises productivity? Will she at least concede, in the climate that the Labour Government have created, that this is no time to be implementing the minimum wage proposals; and that those who wanted to implement the proposals of the Low Pay Commission in full were extremely foolish?

Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-considered diatribe, but he appears to have forgotten a few things. The first is that about four fifths of sterling's appreciation occurred under the previous Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House then, so perhaps that passed him by.
The picture that the hon. Gentleman paints is not one with which industry would agree. Large and small businesses alike know that this Government are good for business, unlike the previous Government, who went from boom to bust. We are trying to establish a climate of stability and certainty—unlike the one created by the Tories.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Resisting the temptation to launch into a diatribe, may I ask the Minister to consider putting in the Library an assessment of the impact on British trade of American-led sanctions against Libya and Iran?

Mrs. Roche: I thank my hon. Friend, whom no one would ever accuse of launching diatribes—he is one of the most courteous Members in the House. I also note what he has to say. We shall accept any recommendations from him and carefully consider them.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: In assessing the impact of Government policies, has the hon. Lady looked at the 3i enterprise barometer, seven tenths of whose respondents are exporters? It is now negative for the first time since the end of 1992. The companies surveyed say that the
climate is now less favourable to starting a new business or expanding existing business activity than it was a year ago.

Mrs. Roche: I do not know what it is about the Conservative party, but Tory Members seem to have terribly selective memories for facts. They forget that the CBI still expects extra volume growth. Barclays' start-up figures for the first three months of this year are more encouraging than ever; and the Lloyds bank survey has found that most businesses and new businesses say that they have enjoyed a much better macro-economic climate under this Government. I do not know what is happening to the Tory party, but I am certain that some medical expertise would come in useful.

Economic and Monetary Union

Mr. Ian Stewart: What further steps she intends to take to give support to businesses preparing for EMU. [45065]

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I am pleased to announce that, among the further steps taken, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe this week published some explanatory fact sheets to support businesses in preparing for the euro; 15,000 of them have been distributed to organisations representing businesses, and to individual firms—especially small and medium enterprises.

Mr. Stewart: The Government's pragmatic approach to European monetary union is the correct one: we should join only if and when that is in Britain's interests. Will the Minister comment on the statement by Commissioner Leon Brittan last month, that the attitude and approach of the Leader of the Opposition to European monetary union is fundamentally flawed—a shrill and emotional reaction to it? Will he also join me in asking the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) whether he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition or with Sir Leon Brittan about speaking up for British interests in Europe?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, and I shall also give the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redmond), the

shadow Secretary of State, the opportunity to agree with John Entwistle, the president of the British Chambers of Commerce, who said yesterday,
We are for the euro.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the Minister aware of the advice that has been given to the President of the United States that it is absolute folly for the countries of the European Community to form a single currency within 12 months of trying to deal with the problems associated with the millennium bug? Will he take notice of those people in this country who are advising that, if one of those two problems could be postponed, it would be sensible to do so?

Mr. Griffiths: It is very brave of the hon. Gentleman to raise the subject of the millennium bug when the record of his party in the previous Government shows that it did nothing about it. By contrast, this Government took the necessary action and appointed Don Cruickshank to head the committee that is ensuring that business is properly prepared for the millennium. We welcome any support that can be given, however belatedly, by Conservative Members.

Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after statements, and we have three statements today.

National Minimum Wage

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Today, the Government publish the report of the Low Pay Commission and spell out how, in our response to that report, we shall begin to end the scandal of poverty pay.
In the labour market that we inherited just over a year ago, many workers received such excessively low rates of pay that they were driven to work long hours simply to make ends meet. We all know the examples: a homeworker paid as little as 35p an hour, a cleaner paid £1.30 an hour or a security guard paid £2.35 an hour—and bring your own dog!
In addition, such low levels of pay mean that taxpayers provide massive sums of income subsidy and businesses, large and small, which are striving to compete, as Britain must, on quality and value for money, see their position undermined, not by fair competition, but by cut-throat cowboys.
With the lack of any fair and basic minimum standards at work, the gap between real hourly earnings of the lowest and highest-paid almost doubled in the past 20 years. That was the outcome of the strategy of the previous Government—Britain aimed to be merely the cheapest rather than the best, and was no longer the workshop of the world, but the sweatshop of western Europe.
This Government believe in decent minimum standards, as a spur to competing sustainably on quality, to tackle social exclusion and to make work pay. We have already made substantial progress. The working families tax credit will guarantee an income of at least £180 a week for families working full time. No family with weekly earnings of less than £220 will pay tax. Reform of national insurance contributions will reduce barriers to work. The new deal will help the young and the long-term unemployed to move from welfare to work. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper and the work of the social exclusion unit are all part of the wider strategy to reshape Britain.
The national minimum wage is a key element in that range of policies. It will help to create a better rewarded and more committed work force, itself a force for driving up standards and helping competitiveness. Experience elsewhere shows, too, the likelihood that staff turnover will be reduced and investment in training encouraged, which itself improves productivity.
We were determined from the outset that the national minimum wage must be introduced sensibly and in accordance with prevailing economic conditions. That is why we set up the Low Pay Commission, with George Bain in the chair, after only 90 days in office. The commissioners were publicly recruited following Nolan principles and drawn from among employers, employees and independents, each serving in an individual capacity.
Their work is impressive. I pay tribute to George Bain and the other commissioners, who have done a quite remarkable job. As well as studying 500 written submissions, they took oral evidence from a wide range of organisations, and held more than 200 meetings throughout the United Kingdom.
The commissioners heard from large and small employers, trade unions, individual employees including homeworkers, and a range of other interested organisations. I whole-heartedly commend their immense hard work, energy and willingness to give so freely of their time for this important task.
As we made clear in our evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the Government were particularly concerned to ensure that our national minimum wage should be set at a level that avoided the risk of adverse effects on employment, inflation and the PSBR.
We have been particularly mindful of the need to protect the position of young people. It is, in our view, essential that we avoid reducing the relative attractiveness to young people of staying on in education and training, and avoid discouraging employers from providing training for those in work. Those concerns have guided our judgment on the decisions in response to the commission's recommendations.
The Government welcome the report, and support all the commission's key recommendations, subject to consultation on some of the practical details. In particular, we accept a main rate of £3·60 per hour before deductions, with effect from April 1999. When combined with the working families tax credit and other benefits, for a one-earner couple with two children, that means an effective wage of more than £7 per hour. We accept that all those aged 16 and 17, or on formal apprenticeships, should be exempt, and we also accept the proposal to institute a development rate.
The commission proposes that that minimum rate should apply at £3·20 to all 18 to 20-year-olds, and to all workers starting a new job with a new employer and receiving accredited training. We are, however, at a critical point in the economic cycle. The Government are determined to proceed with all due caution with the introduction of that rate, especially for the crucial group of those aged 18 to 21.
We have therefore decided, for this group, to phase in the rate in two stages, with an initial transitional rate of £3 from April 1999, which will increase to £3·20 in June 2000. However, we are asking the commission to review the position of 21-year-olds again in 1999, following the implementation of the £3 transitional rate, and then to provide a further report on whether, in the light of experience to that date, the commission reconfirms its advice that 21-year-olds should be covered by the main adult rate.
I am pleased also to announce that we shall be asking the commission to continue its work monitoring and evaluating the introduction and impact of the minimum wage.
Introducing the minimum wage at the levels that I have announced today will help some 2 million workers escape from poverty pay, without adverse effects on jobs or inflation. That will include 1·4 million women; more than 1·3 million part-time workers; some 200,000 young people; about 110,000 homeworkers; approximately 175,000 lone parents who work; and some 130,000 ethnic minority workers.
The remaining Low Pay Commission recommendations deal with such technical matters as the composition and reference period for calculating the minimum wage, the handling of benefits in kind and its application to homeworkers and pieceworkers.


We fully and carefully considered those recommendations and accept them in principle, subject to consultation on the practicalities and detail of their implementation when formulating the regulations implementing the national minimum wage.
Today marks a further milestone in implementing the Government's manifesto commitments. The introduction of a national minimum wage would never have taken place under a Conservative Administration.

Several hon. Members: indicated assent.

Mrs. Beckett: I am glad to see Conservative Members nodding.
From the outset, the Government's approach to the minimum wage has been that it must be approached in an atmosphere and a framework of partnership. The Low Pay Commission has shown that that approach was the right one. It is clear from its work that there is now an overwhelming welcome for the principle of the minimum wage. Among the few people out of step appears to be the Conservative party. I challenge the Conservatives today, on behalf of the 2 million people benefiting from these proposals, to say whether, if returned to office, they will seek to reverse the steps that we take today.
The minimum wage, with our other policies such as the working families tax credit, will help to remove the worst cases of exploitation in the workplace—cases which had a place under the Conservative party, but which have no place in a modern Britain. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. John Redwood: This week, we have seen prices up, mortgages up, wage inflation up—and now the Government wish to throw more petrol on those inflationary fires. If one employee gets a pay rise, others, including well-paid ones, will want one, too.
No wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been out to sabotage this wages policy, because he at least knows that inflationary pay awards make no one better off. They are fool's gold. As the Government take us back to the strikes and the inflation of the 1960s, they give us a mods and rockers Government. The mods, led by the Prime Minister, believe that you can do it all with soundbites. It is as effective as putting go-faster stripes on a scooter. The rockers, led by the Chancellor, spend their time trying to break up the manifesto promises. For this statement is an act of betrayal by the Government. In the election—[Interruption.] Labour Members ought to listen to this, because they know that it is true. In the election campaign, Labour psromised—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
In the election campaign, Labour promised a decent minimum wage for all. Today, the Labour Government tell us that no one under 18 will benefit from these proposals. They tell us that 18 to 21-year-olds will receive only a lower rate. They tell us that their idea of a decent rate is as little as £3 an hour. They even tell us that the tips put on to credit card payments will be included in the calculation. Perhaps they intend to give yet more encouragement to the black economy, outside the clutches of both the tax man and the soon-to-arrive minimum wage inspector.
We have warned the Government throughout that a minimum wage policy will not work. We have consistently argued for a minimum income rather than a minimum wage—with benefit top-ups for families that need the extra. Will the President now confirm, as I think she implied, that she agrees with our approach? Does she agree that benefits will still be needed for many people to top up these minimum wages, and will she confirm to all those people that their benefits will still be paid? Is not the beneficiary of this proposal the Government, not the person on a low income?
We told the President that she would be forced to exempt young people—otherwise, she would destroy their jobs, or their chances of a job. Will she confirm that young people are being left out of her proposals, or offered less money, because the Government now agree with us that their jobs are at risk?
Will the President tell us what forecast the Government have made of how many jobs would be lost if everyone was given the promise of £3·60 an hour, and how many jobs will be saved by treating 16 to 21-year-olds differently? She must know the figures. The report of the Low Pay Commission confirms that jobs will be lost, and prices will go up. She should tell the House and the nation how many jobs are now at risk.
Does the President agree with her right hon. Friend—at least, I thought he was her right hon. Friend—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that wage increases destroy jobs? Does she now understand that her Low Pay Commission is a complete waste of time and money, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the decisions whatever the commission may say? Will she, for once, accept my sympathy that she has been forced to eat her words and break her promise of the same minimum wage for all? Indeed, would she not be better off taking a holiday, or praying for an easier job in the reshuffle, given the way that the Chancellor interferes with the present one?
We left the Government a golden economic legacy. Today, the Government are doing their best to destroy it. The Bank of England has warned them against this policy. The Government blunder on. In their nostalgia for the 1960s and 1970s, they are taking us back to the strikes; back to the inflation; back to the bad old ways; back to the bad old days.

Mrs. Beckett: I challenged the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party to tell us whether they would repeal the minimum wage, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be torn between complaining that it did not apply at the full rate to everyone from age 16 and complaining that it applies at all. He did not tell us anything about the Opposition's proposals.
The fact of the matter is that the minimum wage is a hugely important step. As I said in the statement, it will benefit 2 million people. I should be very surprised if the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else expected that such a wage would apply to 16 and 17-year-olds. In any event, the Low Pay Commission spent a great deal of time studying those matters and it firmly believes that 16 and 17-year-olds should be exempt, as should people on formal apprenticeships. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman apparently disagrees, and we shall certainly bear that in mind when he talks about the impact on inflation. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman still asks why, so clearly that is a fruitful topic to pursue.


The simple fact is that, because we have a Labour Government, 2 million people will begin to be released from poverty pay. The fact is that the Low Pay Commission will continue its work and continue to monitor the implementation of the steps. The minimum wage will not cost jobs or lead to high inflation: it will give the most exploited people in this country some relief from exploitation that clearly would have continued in perpetuity under the Conservatives.

Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every Labour Member will regard the introduction of the minimum wage as a huge leap forward in the Labour party's historic crusade against unemployment and poverty? She deserves the congratulations of the whole House. Is it not ironic that the arguments for minimum pay were recognised by Churchill in 1909? Is it not obvious what an uphill task the Tories face in modernising their party?

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. A sad feature of recent years is that the Conservatives have lost all sight of the principles of fairness and social justice. That is part of what put them on the Opposition Benches, and will no doubt help to keep them there.

Mr. David Chidgey: It is nice to hear Sir Winston Churchill's name again mentioned with reverence from the Government Benches. Times have not changed too much.
The President of the Board of Trade will know that we support many aspects of the Low Pay Commission's work, and we welcome its report in that regard. However, I wish to raise some differences with the right hon. Lady. Does she accept the concept of the longer-term linking of the development rate for 18 to 21-year-olds only with formal education and training? What are her views on that subject? In talking about the continuing role of the Low Pay Commission, does she mean that it will be a permanent body? Will its duties include not just monitoring but recommending on future rates?
Is it not true that the Low Pay Commission has discovered that there is a need for flexibility in the national minimum wage and has used the development rate as a means of achieving that? Would it not have been better if the Low Pay Commission had been permitted in the first place to look at the variations that exist in the economies of the south-east of England and London, and the rest of the country, and examine and report on that phenomenon—the President knows that that is in the report—rather than simply concentrating on a development rate for young people?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions. He asked initially about linking the development rate only with accredited training. I am afraid that I could not tell from his phrasing of the question whether he was for or against it. However, that is certainly the view of the commission. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman is for it. We accept the commission's view and take it very seriously. We shall continue to explore those issues.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the continuing role of the commission. That body will continue to monitor the implementation of the minimum wage and we

shall continue to seek its advice. I know that it is difficult to follow all the details when statements are made quickly, and the hon. Gentleman may not have taken on board the fact that we have already sought further advice from the Low Pay Commission about the rate for 21-year-olds in June 2000.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about allowing the commission to pursue the issue of variations between regions. The Government set their face for a national rate because of the complications of defining regional boundaries, what happens to benefit rates, and so on. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will not have had much opportunity to study the detail of the report, but it is interesting to see from the commission's conclusions that it found in its hearings that there were far greater variations within regions than between regions. That shows just how difficult it would be to have rates that vary according to geographical location. It is partly why we share the view that there needs to be a national rate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nobody can deny that on a day like today the political high ground is on Goverment Benches? That is more than evidenced by the response from the shadow President of the Board of Trade. Will she have another look at the 20p difference for young people? Will she also bear it in mind that every group of workers receives payments in kind of some sort? Will payments such as tips and the rest be taken into account? If such payments were taken into account for everyone, Ministers would be in serious trouble.

Mrs. Beckett: I must confess that my hon. Friend has taken me slightly by surprise—I have no recollection of being tipped, but I look forward to it.
The Low Pay Commission has recommended that payments based on output, productivity or performance should count, and that payments based on results, bonuses, tips and gratuities and so on should be taken into account if they are paid through the payroll, but not otherwise. That should reassure not only my hon. Friend but many who are slightly puzzled about the details of those matters. Obviously, there is no intention that the ordinary tip that someone leaves in, say, a restaurant will be taken into account.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the right hon. Lady answer questions to which many of those who may be affected want to know the answers?
First, if, in a year's time, the underlying rate of inflation remains at 3 per cent., will the extra 10p an hour be added to the £3·60 rate?
Secondly, if the rate is £3·60 or £3·70, can the right hon. Lady confirm what the Chancellor knew last night when he spoke at Great George street on the 60th anniversary of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research: that the proposed rate will have the effect of losing some 1 per cent. of employment–250,000 jobs? How is that compatible with the right hon. Lady's assertion that it will have no impact on jobs?
Finally, if someone receives an increase in pay of 30p an hour—the right hon. Lady said that basic earnings may be £7 an hour, with the extra £3·40 from benefits—how much of that 30p will be lost in terms of lost benefit? How much will the person gain from the extra 30p?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of detailed questions, which will arise during discussions


on the proposals and in the consultation. I shall simply pick out two of the major points. He asked what will happen to the rates in, say, the year 2000. The Government will take that into account as we approach that time, but we shall not make a decision about those matters now. I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman's description, but he quoted some supposed calculations about the effect on employment. The Government do not believe that the proposals will have a disadvantageous effect. Indeed, we very much believe that they will be beneficial in stimulating productivity and stability in the work force.
I am interested and slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman' s comments, as he has always claimed to be a friend of people on low pay.

Mr. David Borrow: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? The 2,700 constituents of mine who will benefit from her announcement will also welcome it, and will note the comments of the Conservatives—the party of poverty pay.
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that when the Low Pay Commission reviews the implementation of the minimum wage, all aspects will be reviewed, including whether there needs to be a lower rate for young workers, what that should be in relation to the adult workers' rate, the effect on industry as a whole and whether there should be a rate for young workers under the age of 18?

Mrs. Beckett: 1 thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for identifying the fact that many people in his constituency, as in all our constituencies, will benefit from these proposals. I can certainly assure him that when the Low Pay Commission undertakes its review, it will, of course, review all aspects of the implementation and handling of the minimum wage, including wage rates and the handling of the development rate. By then, it will have the benefit of practical experience of how the introduction of the rates has worked.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she plans an audit of the burden of red tape that will be put on small and medium-sized enterprises by the national minimum wage? What advice has she received from the better regulation unit on that subject?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady seems not to be aware that, as I understand it, the better regulation task force has congratulated the Government. As for red tape, when the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to study the Low Pay Commission's report in more depth—something which I quite understand she will not have had—she will see that it makes several proposals that should greatly simplify the administration of the national minimum wage and make it easy for people to see clearly how it works and what the impact will be in their place of work.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Having been elected to the House in 1992 on a promise of a £3.40-an-hour minimum wage, and having seen what has happened to the salary of Members of Parliament since then, I have to say that I find today's proposals—and even more so, the failure to implement the Low Pay Commission's proposals in full—bitterly disappointing.

I notice that my right hon. Friend said that today's measures would be the beginning of the end of poverty pay. When does she expect that we will end it for good?

Mrs. Beckett: Anybody who tried to answer that question would be treading in very dangerous waters indeed. Of course I understand my hon. Friend's concern and her disappointment, but I am sure that she recognises the need to introduce the minimum wage at a level that will minimise the impact on employment and— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not know why Conservative Members are making so much noise. When the Low Pay Commission was set up, the Government recommended that it should take these issues into account. We have always recognised that it would be possible to set the minimum wage at a level that could have an impact on employment. That is why we are confident that that is not what we are doing today.
The figure to which my hon. Friend refers was a figure reached by the deployment of a particular formula. The Government have long since come to the conclusion that it was better to proceed by means of social partnership and by practical discussions between representatives of employers of varying sizes and of the work force, and to come to an agreed view about the most practical and sensible way to implement the national minimum wage. The Government decided long ago that that was the right path to pursue. With deep respect to my hon. Friend, she fought the last election on that policy.

Mr. Eric Forth: If the work of the Low Pay Commission was as wonderful as the Secretary of State said, why did she reject some of its key recommendations?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly not been paying attention. We have accepted the commission's key recommendations.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this is a good day for those of us who believe in the redistribution of wealth and that the proposals will make a big difference to many of the people I represent? In Sunderland, many people struggle on a wage rate of £2 an hour, and the lowest rate of which I am aware is 89p an hour. Will she confirm that the most important issue is not the rate that is set, but the vigour with which it is enforced? Will she give the House an assurance that the rate that she has announced will be vigorously enforced?

Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I thank him for his remarks and the information that he has given the House. I notice that, for once, he silenced Conservative Members—although no doubt not for long. The national minimum wage will be implemented with vigour. As I told the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the Low Pay Commission has already turned its attention to how to ensure that everyone is clear about what the national minimum wage means for them and how they can judge whether they are receiving the proper rate of pay. The Government certainly have that in mind.

Mr. Roy Beggs: While I support the principle of decent minimum standards and the desire to


end poverty pay, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to take account of the fact that Northern Ireland, which has been identified as a low-wage economy for too long, has had increasing employment opportunities. Will she assure me that her proposals will not damage those continuing employment opportunities, and that areas of high unemployment throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will be closely monitored to determine the impact of the proposals?

Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the commission took fully into account the circumstances of areas such as Northern Ireland. The commission visited Northern Ireland and took evidence. The commission is confident, as are we, that its proposals, which we have accepted, can be implemented to the considerable benefit of people in the Province and throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Winnick: I have some reservations about the rate for young people. No doubt there will be opportunities to pursue that. Is it not sickening that Members of Parliament with substantial incomes in addition to their parliamentary salaries should be so passionate in favour of starvation wages? Should we not take every opportunity to tell the electorate that Tory Members were willing for us to stay up all night on 9 March to fight for a principle that they believe in so passionately—that people in this country should continue to have starvation wages?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. It was difficult to detect a consistent theme from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) or from Conservative Back Benchers, but it is clear that, at the next election, the Conservative party intends to threaten 2 million of our poorest fellow citizens with wage cuts.

Mr. Philip Hammond: The right hon. Lady is not the only person to have had to eat a good portion of humble pie in these proceedings. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), launched a scathing attack on Conservative Members in Committee when we suggested that tips should be taken into account in calculating whether the minimum wage had been paid. The right hon. Lady has told the House that tips will be taken into account when they are paid through the payroll. Has her hon. Friend offered his resignation? Now that the rate and the details of the applicability of the minimum wage are known, what figure has the Treasury model given her for the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of its introduction?

Mrs. Beckett: I have already dealt with the issue of tips. My hon. Friend was right to say that tips will not be included. They will not be included unless they are part of proper remuneration, not a random figure. The hon. Gentleman says that I should feel humble today. I strive always to feel humble, because that is better than suffering from the conceit and arrogance of the Conservatives. Despite my efforts toward humility, what I feel today, standing at the Dispatch Box to advance and defend the national minimum wage, is pride.

Mr. Huw Edwards: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? It represents the most

important advance in employment rights since the Equal Pay Act 1970, which was also systematically opposed by the Conservative party. Will she join me in congratulating all those who campaigned for a national minimum wage—trade unions and organisations such as the Low Pay Unit—and the Ministers who took the legislation through Committee in the face of the Conservative party's continual opposition?

Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. He is probably too young to remember the introduction of the Equal Pay Act, but I vividly remember it, I remember what the Conservative party said about how it would harm employment and how people would lose their jobs. I also remember that, at that time, I was living in the household of a lone parent who did not receive equal pay. The introduction of the Act by a Labour Government made a big difference to our standard of living.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us whether the party Whips have identified the Minister who was quoted in today's edition of The Guardian, who said that the Government's proposals were unacceptable because they failed to protect those who have least, while allowing very high rates of pay and increases in pay at the top level? Would it not be easier to stomach some of the Government's arguments if they were prepared to increase the higher rate of tax to bring greater resources into the public sector to provide the quality services and social investment that we desperately need? Is not it astonishing that a Labour Government are not prepared to bite that bullet?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has strayed rather far from the issue of the minimum wage; he is talking about the general issue of taxation policy. I hope that he, like all of us on the Labour Benches, very much welcomes, for example, the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce the working families tax credit. The hon. Gentleman is talking primarily about the public sector. He must surely have observed that large numbers of the 2 million people who will benefit from the introduction of a national minimum wage work in the private sector. That is where the worst exploitation takes place.

Mr. John McAllion: Everyone accepts that young people undergoing training cannot expect to be paid the rate for the job, but few would accept that young people should be discriminated against simply because they are young people. Already, under-25s are paid a low rate of income support and are subjected to the injustice of the single-room rent allowance simply because of their age. Now, 18 to 21-year-olds will be paid a lower national minimum wage simply because of their age. How can young people take seriously our talk of trying to tackle social exclusion when we exclude them from the rights of every adult citizen simply because of their age?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's concern to draw young people into the community and to avoid social exclusion. In a variety of ways, the Government are seeking to offer young people good training opportunities to try to ensure that they can


secure jobs. That is very much the key to their prosperity. I do not share my hon. Friend's view that it is particularly damaging to young people to be offered a development rate of the national minimum wage. As I said earlier, the Low Pay Commission looked very carefully at the area. I am confident that, despite his concerns, he has not overlooked the fact that very many young people—some 200,000—will benefit from today's announcement even at the rates that we are proposing.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the minimum wage be index-linked to inflation?

Mrs. Beckett: That has not been proposed by the Low Pay Commission; nor, indeed, is it proposed by the Government. Despite having, as I understand from the Register of Members' Interests, some seven paid jobs, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is showing concern for the low-paid.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at tipping? Does she agree that when a customer tips for service, that customer does not expect the employer to skim off money for costs that ought to be paid from the profits of the business; and that if the employer is doing that, he is robbing the employee of money that the employee should have? If so, are we not getting into dangerous waters to count tips at all? Should they not be considered a top-up to a basic wage, whatever that basic wage happens to be?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern, and I can tell her that that is what is going to happen. It is intended that commissions, tips and gratuities paid through the payroll will be taken into account in assessing the national minimum wage, in the same way that they are now taken into account for taxation. That is the way these issues are handled at present, and they will continue to be handled in that way in the application of the national minimum wage.

Mr. James Paice: Will the President publish and tell the House now of any assessment that she or the Chancellor has made in respect of the restoration of differentials and the impact of her proposals on other pay?

Mrs. Beckett: The Low Pay Commission looked at the issue of the restoration of differentials and, from its careful assessment and its deep, detailed studies in the labour market, it believes that the impact on differentials would be minimal. I remind the House that, with great respect to those who are theoretical economists, the commission was not making a theoretical assessment, but was operating and taking evidence from those who have practical experience in the marketplace. It is on that basis that the commission made its observations.

Mr. John Cryer: What guarantee can my right hon. Friend give that 16 to 18-year-olds will not be exploited?

Mrs. Beckett: There is a whole range of other measures that apply to 16 to 18-year-olds, including rights to training, which we believe will be beneficial to them. I can only say that we do not take the view—nor, if I may

remind my hon. Friend, did the Low Pay Commission—that 16 and 17-year-olds should be included in the structures of the minimum wage.

Gillian Merron: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's announcement, Labour Members share her pride in seeing the arrival of the first ever national minimum wage in this country; it has been consistently opposed by the Conservatives. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House about anticipated savings in the welfare benefits bill? We have heard about the benefits to the 2 million low-paid people and the benefits resulting from the boost to the economy, but the taxpayers of this country and others will also benefit. Can my right hon. Friend give us an estimate?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that she is one of those who, night after night, valiantly bore the heat and the burden in the Standing Committee on the Bill to get the legislation on the statute book. She is right to say that one of the beneficial effects of the legislation will be substantial savings to the taxpayer. I noticed that the shadow Secretary of State chose to dress up, in references to an overall minimum income, a call for substantial taxpayer subsidies to people who exploit by paying poverty wages. We do not share that view.
I have to tell my hon. Friend that I am not in a position to give the estimates for which she calls. It may be possible over time for people to do some calculations, but 1 have no figure before me for savings on the tax bill. However, we all know that, at the present time, the subsidy from taxpayers for low pay is about £1·5 billion, and we expect that substantially to reduce.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Are the Government slightly embarrassed that the Government of the Republic of Ireland have recently proposed a minimum wage there of £4·40 per hour?
The Low Pay Commission's recommendation that the national minimum wage should be £3·70 in 2000 is the very first recommendation in its report, which seems to signify that it is seen as a key recommendation. How does the right hon. Lady square her non-acceptance of that with the fact that she says that the Government are accepting all the key recommendations?

Mrs. Beckett: First, the Republic of Ireland has different structures and different pay rates, but, if its Government were having to introduce a minimum wage today, cold, on the basis of a labour market that had been exploited and neglected as ours was under the Conservatives, I am not at all sure whether they would choose to introduce it at that rate. It is the Government's concern to get the right rate and level of introduction.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the recommendation on the development rate. I repeat that the Low Pay Commission made a small number of key recommendations, which we have accepted. We have said that we will phase in that recommendation for that group in the first year.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the President of the Board of Trade accept that if the minimum wage rate is set at or below the market rate, it will simply be otiose and, if it is set above the market rate, it will simply lead


to a loss of jobs? Has the right hon. Lady estimated how many jobs will be lost, has she simply not estimated that, or has she done so but is not prepared to share the estimation with the House?

Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about employment levels, he could give up one of the six jobs that he has. He has made that point before ad nauseam and there is nothing more nauseous than listening to well-paid Conservative Members defending a system in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out a few moments ago, some people receive sums as low as 89p an hour. I am disgusted that the Conservative party defends that.

Mr. Chris Pond: While not wishing to undersell my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), may I point out that cases of 49p an hour are not uncommon? That is why Labour Members welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is she aware that her pride in it will be reflected in the welcome that it will receive throughout the country? Many people will think that the statement by the shadow President of the Board of Trade that the minimum wage is fool's gold is adding insult to the injury that the Conservative party created for the low-paid for so many years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Low-Pay Commission is asked to reconsider the appropriate rate for 21-year-olds, it will also be asked to consider the appropriate rate for 18 to 20-year-olds in relation to the adult rate?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course, all hon. Members—certainly those on the Labour Benches—are aware of the long and honourable record that my hon. Friend has in campaigning on the issue. I am sure that he is as pleased as we are that we are so close to achieving the introduction of a national minimum wage. He asked about the proceedings when the Low Pay Commission reconsiders the rate for 21-year-olds. We are anxious for it to begin that reconsideration during 1999, and to make early recommendations. Of course, it will be its role in general to monitor, keep under review and, from time to time, advise on rates and, indeed, the process and pattern of what is happening as we introduce the national minimum wage across the board.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Thank you, Mrs. Beckett. I am bringing this statement to a close.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 22 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 23 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
That will be followed in the afternoon and evening by consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (third allotted day).
THURSDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th allotted day).
Until about 7 pm there will be a debate on a sittings motion for Friday 3 July in the name of the Liberal Democrats, followed by a debate on Government strategy on social welfare on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party.
FRIDAY 26 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day). The subject will be announced.
TUESDAY 30 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 1 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House followed by completion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY 2 JULY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] followed by the remaining stages of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 3 JULY—Private Members' Bills.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving next week's business and the provisional business for the following week. In addition to the business that she has announced for next week, it is likely that there will be further ministerial statements. In the light of what happened today—not for the first time, the contents of a statement were widely trailed in the press and the media—will she bring to the attention of fellow members of the Government paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code, which was revised by the Prime Minister last July? It makes it clear that
When Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.
The right hon. Lady announced that, on Monday, the House is to consider a range of amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill, some of which relate to the age of consent. Has she seen the points of order raised by two Labour Members yesterday—in column 386 of Hansard—pressing for changes in the way in which the Business Committee operates so that the House can vote


on amendments that have been selected by Madam Speaker but have not been reached? Does she have sympathy with those points of order?
Two weeks ago, in response to a business question, the right hon. Lady said that the House would not sit on Saturdays for "normal business". Will she confirm that, like the establishment of an assembly in Wales and of a Parliament in Scotland, the establishment of an assembly in Northern Ireland is, indeed, the normal business of the House and that there is no question of inviting the House to sit on a Saturday to deal with it?
The House will be expecting the Government to have completed a number of reviews shortly, including the strategic defence review, the comprehensive spending review and reviews on the Child Support Agency and on pensions. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that statements will be made to the House on each of those? Will she give some idea of when they will be made, especially the statement on the comprehensive spending review? Furthermore, when can the House expect the long-awaited and much promised foreign affairs debate?
Finally, those who work in the House—and, indeed, many Labour Members—will want to know more about the plans for the summer recess. Will she shed any further light on when the House will rise for that event?

Mrs. Taylor: I shall deal first with the right hon. Gentleman's point about statements. I hope that he is not suggesting that it is only under this Government that there has been a great deal of press speculation about the contents of statements that are to be made to the House. I know that Ministers take steps to try to ensure that speculation does not get out of hand and that they are careful about what they say in advance of statements. As he is pressing for more statements, he will know that there is speculation, not least by Conservative Members, about the contents of some of the reviews. We cannot stop all speculation, but it is right that Ministers should not be party to the early release of information and that they should make relevant statements to the House—that is the procedure that we try to follow.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about consideration of the Crime and Disorder Bill on Monday and the points of order that were raised, which, I believe, concerned genuine issues. We shall have to look at how the Bill is dealt with on Monday. The Business Committee is taking on board those issues; it is trying to ensure that there are votes on Monday evening on the relevant amendments selected by Madam Speaker. Those discussions are continuing and I intend to ensure that all hon. Members know the exact order of votes on Monday—we shall try to make that factual information available to all hon. Members in advance of any votes that are called.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about reviews. I said that we will have statements, not necessarily on all the subjects that he mentioned, but on all the more important issues. They will be made, I hope, some time next month, although I cannot give dates in advance.
The right hon. Gentleman again asked for a foreign affairs debate. I have said that I hope to find time later in the Session for one. We arranged for a full day's debate on European matters last Thursday, but it was poorly attended, especially by Conservative Members, and collapsed earlier than we had expected, so I am not sure that there is always as much interest in the subject as people think.
I answered the point about sitting on Saturdays some time ago. It is not my intention that the House should sit on Saturdays, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that if there is an occasion on which the House can make special arrangements to help advance the peace process in Northern Ireland, we should do so. I do not expect anything specific, but we should always be careful about what we say on Northern Ireland issues and the responsibilities of the House in that respect.
I genuinely cannot answer the question about the recess, not least because the dates will depend on the progress of the business that is currently being conducted. The right hon. Gentleman will know from our discussions through the usual channels that not all the details have yet been agreed.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When does my right hon. Friend expect there to be a debate on the report by the Low Pay Commission and the Government's response to it? Will she ensure that, in such a debate, there will be an opportunity to amend the Government's proposals on the rates of pay and the youth rates of pay, and that separate votes will be taken on each of the elements proposed in the package?

Mrs. Taylor: The next stage will be for the regulations to be laid. That will be done, but not in the immediate future, and I do not think it right to anticipate when such a debate might occur. I shall, of course, bear my hon. Friend's points in mind.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that in the discussions on the Crime and Disorder Bill there will be a full opportunity to debate the Government's proposals on dealing with football hooliganism? As a Cornishman, I am totally objective in the matter, as I believe that real men play rugby. I know that the right hon. Lady disagrees with that, but I wonder whether she has taken note of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who seems to think that the flower of England's youth was defending the nation's honour. Does she accept that such a debate would allow the full range of Conservative Members' points of view to be expressed?
There are disturbing rumours—I wonder whether the Leader of the House can confirm that discussions have taken place through the usual channels—that the Conservative Opposition propose to break the bipartisan approach on Northern Ireland. Has she had any assurances from Conservative Front Benchers? Will she reaffirm her intention to try to preserve the all-party approach on such important matters?
Will the Leader of the House reiterate, on behalf of the whole House, the respect that we all have for the accuracy, integrity and independence of the House of Commons Library? She will have noted that yesterday the Prime Minister appeared to question the statistics on taxation provided by the Library. Will she acknowledge that on some occasions the Library is correct when her colleagues are wrong? For example, will she acknowledge that in the Library note of 15 June provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce),


the Treasury's recent document on spending is shown to be wrong and that the Government have been overgenerous by 25 per cent.?

Mrs. Taylor: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are discussing next week's business. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is seeking a debate on Library publications? Otherwise, he is abusing this period of discussion of next week's business.

Mrs. Taylor: I am tempted to say, "Not next week."
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his comments yesterday, he was raising the issue of the presumptions that had been fed into the questions that were asked to obtain that information.
On the serious point about bipartisanship on Northern Ireland, we all have significant responsibilities. The Prime Minister's statement at Question Time yesterday reinforced that extremely well and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should heed his words.
On the subject of football hooliganism, I should emphasise that it was hooliganism by English supporters; we should not include the Scots. I was alarmed, outraged and amused to a ridiculous extent that anyone could come out with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). He clearly was not speaking along the same lines as his own Front-Bench team, with whom it may be possible to have an element of bipartisanship—if the right hon. Gentleman is excluded.

Mr. Joe Ashton: May I thank the Leader of the House and you, Madam Speaker, for her and your generous protection of the interests of Back Benchers as regards Monday's business? I raised a point of order yesterday on whether the Business Committee could make it possible, when the age of consent clause is moved, for time to be allowed for other Back-Bench amendments. I was glad to hear the Leader of the House say that that will be considered and it is good to know that our rights will be protected.

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot guarantee that all amendments will be voted on, as that will depend on selection, but we shall try to arrange matters so that as many significant issues as possible are voted on. I shall try to ensure that all hon. Members are properly informed of the sequence of votes.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Leader of the House describe the terms of reference of Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry into the arms to Sierra Leone affair? In particular, do they allow him to look into the arming of Nigerian soldiers, who were the main part of the so-called peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone? It is possible that those arms were later used to keep down the people of Nigeria after their President died.

Mrs. Taylor: I do not believe that we will have a debate on that matter in the near future. When the terms of reference were set out, my right hon. Friend the Foreign

Secretary said that if Sir Thomas Legg wanted the terms extended to cover any other relevant point, he could ask for that to happen. It is therefore clear that relevant information will not be denied to Sir Thomas Legg.

Mr. John McDonnell: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider timetabling a fuller debate on the "Fairness at Work" White Paper? She will be aware that I have raised industrial relations issues confronting several of my constituents in recent weeks, particularly in a dispute at Noon's. I have been visited by a group of constituents who work at American Airlines, where fairly intensive intimidation has been waged against them by the management team of Paul Mallard, Janice Cowell and Beniot Perignon. It has involved intimidation of people on sick leave, accusations of petty dishonesty and manipulation of the staff relations handbook to ensure that staff are slimmed down before a merger with British Airways. I urge an early debate on industrial relations so that that matter can be exposed in full.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has consistently raised matters affecting his constituency. I know from other interventions that he has pursued these cases vigorously. I cannot promise him the debate that he wants for reasons that he well understands. Perhaps he might apply for an Adjournment debate. I also remind him that there will be a three-hour open Adjournment debate just before the summer recess. If he has not found time to raise the matter before then, that might be a suitable occasion on which to do so.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The usual channels have been mentioned. It is possible that on Monday 29 June the Government may wish to make a statement on the Northern Ireland elections. Bearing it in mind that since the referendum there has been no contact with the Ulster Unionists Whips Office before 12 noon and that it is impossible to travel across in time for a statement after that time, would it be possible to give us early notice, not just through the usual channels, but directly?

Mrs. Taylor: It is impossible to inform every hon. Member directly when a statement is to be made, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and I shall bear them in mind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the shadow Leader of the House asked for a foreign affairs debate, it was with some justice that my right hon. Friend referred to the poor attendance at Thursday night's debate on Europe. As one who took part and asked questions about Kosovo, may I ask whether we may have a statement before there is any idea of an air strike or military intervention and before British service men are in any way committed, rather than waiting until it is a fait accompli? Can we have an undertaking that there will be no action other than under the authority of the United Nations and with the acquiescence, at least, of the Russians?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has a long-term interest in such issues. I recall his asking me that the House be kept informed of the possible activity of British troops in another area. I cannot give an absolute undertaking that


an oral statement will be made before any decision to deploy troops but, obviously, we take keeping the House properly informed of any decisions very seriously. We will always endeavour to give the House information at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May we have a statement early next week from the Deputy Prime Minister on London Underground? Since he made his last statement, has not uncertainty about the future of the system grown rather than diminished—no one knows who is going to take on the franchises to operate the infrastructure? Were not Londoners seriously inconvenienced by industrial action on Monday and Tuesday largely because of that uncertainty, created by the Deputy Prime Minister himself?

Mrs. Taylor: I do not accept that that is the reason for the problems. All hon. Members and everyone who uses the tube in London are aware of the vast problems of underinvestment over many years when the hon. Gentleman's party were in government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has kept the House informed and I do not see any prospect of an early debate.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels and before next week's Opposition day debate, can say why the Liberal Democrats chose just two of the private Members' Bills that are listed for 3 July and perhaps did not consider the Bills that came above those two in the ballot.

Mrs. Taylor: That, of course, is a question that the Liberal Democrats will have to answer. I understand the concerns of hon. Members who have worthy private Members' Bills that have been excluded from the Liberal Democrat motion, but the Liberal Democrats will have to answer for themselves. However, I hope that no one is under any illusion that Thursday's business will guarantee the passage of any individual private Member's Bill. That is not the case.

Mr. John Bercow: Given the Government's support for a statutory right of interest on the late payment of commercial debt and Ministers' professed belief in justice and equity, why can we not have an early further statement from the President of the Board of Trade, which would give her the opportunity to explain what she failed to explain today—why the Government opposed amendment No. 41 to the National Minimum Wage Bill? That amendment would have given employees the right to claim interest on minimum wages that were not paid or paid late—an amendment that I tabled and the Government failed to support.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration if he cannot always get in to ask every question that he wants to ask, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's statement was comprehensive and well received.

Mr. John Cryer: I should like to add my voice to the requests for an early debate on the Low Pay Commission report and the Government's recommendations. It will include, I hope, an opportunity to amend the national minimum wage legislation. I urge

my right hon. Friend to take no notice of the comments of the Conservative Front Bench about the Government's treatment of the House. The shadow Leader of the House was a member of a Government who treated this place with absolute contempt for 18 years, who trailed legislation before anyone knew about it and whose general record on the treatment of the House of Commons was lamentable.

Mrs. Taylor: Many Conservative Members have very short memories. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the previous Government's track record on ignoring the House. We try to make statements on important issues here—in line with established convention.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on early-day motion 1264 on the Nationwide building society?
[That this House regrets that the Nationwide Building Society has again been forced to ballot its members on its future as a mutual so soon after the last attempt to convert the society to a bank was rejected by its membership; recognises that building societies are widely trusted by consumers, and notes that they provide essential diversity on the high street, accounting for a growing share of the market; further notes that, as they do not have to pay dividends to external shareholders they can offer cheaper mortgages and better returns on savings; and urges the members of the Nationwide Building Society once again to vote to retain its mutual status.]
Will the right hon. Lady ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to explain to the House whether the Government will take the necessary measures to stop the annual round of predation by those who are trying to destroy the mutual sector?

Mrs. Taylor: I understand the interest many hon. Members take in this matter. We recognise that there must be diversity and competition in the savings and loans market. I cannot promise the debate that the hon. Gentleman wants. I am sure that, with the ingenuity that he has quickly developed as a new Member, he will find other ways to raise the matter.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: We read in the press today that Britain is to slash its nuclear arsenal and will not buy seven new Trident warheads at a cost of £100 million. That is immensely heartening, but even if the reports are untrue is there not a case for an early debate on nuclear proliferation, especially given what has happened in southern Asia? If we cannot have a debate, surely a statement would be in order, especially if the reports are true.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend refers to speculation about the possible final outcome of the strategic defence review. I have just said that I do not think that Ministers should talk about such issues in advance of statements, but I understand why he puts the matter in the context of southern Asia. I cannot guarantee a debate in the near future, but I have said previously that we will spend time debating defence matters in this Session.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many tens of thousands of commuters were put to the most gross inconvenience this week by


the irresponsible, selfish attitude of employees of London Underground? In view of the Government's intimate relationship with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, will she allow a debate on some of the extraordinary Spanish practices—and bad working practices—of union members in London Underground so that we can find a way to encourage a more liberal attitude to work?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by a more liberal attitude to work. Industrial relations are a matter for London Transport. It would not be right for the Government to intervene directly in negotiations between London Transport and the unions.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Following the news that the Government's views on quarantine regulations will probably not be announced until the autumn, is there not a need for an urgent debate on these cruel, unfair and irrational rules, which are more likely to bring disease into the country than the reformed system used in other countries, such as Sweden? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plight of many people who do not wish to inflict quarantine on their companion animals? In the past 25 years, not one quarantined animal has been discovered with rabies, but 13 people have come into the country with rabies. It would be more rational to put holidaymakers into Strangeways when they come from abroad than to continue with the present system.

Mrs. Taylor: I can see that that appeals to some Opposition Members. A consultation on quarantine rules is taking place. It is a serious subject. Concerns have been raised on both sides of the issue. The Agriculture Committee has published a significant report. It is right that Ministers should consider all the evidence. The House will be kept informed when decisions have been taken.

Dr. Evan Harris: In the light of the collapse late yesterday of the prosecution case against nine of my constituents—asylum seekers at

Campsfield house—because of what could politely be described as the incompetence and inconsistency of the Group 4 prosecution witnesses, will the Home Secretary make a statement early next week on the Government's recent decision to extend Group 4's contract and the award for good practice given by a Home Office Minister to Group 4 at Campsfield? Could the statement include the Government's position on the use of prisons for asylum seekers, which has been condemned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Sir David Ramsbotham? To my horror, five innocent asylum seekers have been sent to prison, where they are being detained while their cases are determined.

Mrs. Taylor: The decision to mount prosecutions against nine defendants was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service after an investigation by Thames Valley police. It is right that the accused should be acquitted if the evidence presented in court is insufficient to support a guilty verdict. I understand that after the collapse of the trial, Group 4 will review the evidence that emerged and conduct, if appropriate, an inquiry into what went on. It is best that I leave it there at this stage. There are no plans for an immediate statement from the Home Office.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: As I tabled a second group of amendments for the debate on the age of consent, may I join the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in thanking the Leader of the House for her consideration for Back Benchers in respect of Monday' s debate? What is her best estimate of when we will get the information that she said she would make available about when the votes will be taken?

Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I remind him that I said that we could not guarantee a vote on any specific issue. That depends on other people and, thankfully, is not in my hands. On making the information available, once the Business Committee has completed its work and selection is concluded, it will be possible to make the information available. I imagine that it will available early on Monday afternoon and certainly quite soon after the debate starts.

Bristol Royal Infirmary

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): With permission, I should like to make a statement on children's heart surgery at Bristol royal infirmary.
I promised that once the General Medical Council had completed its disciplinary proceedings against the three doctors concerned, the Government would establish an independent inquiry into children's heart surgery at the infirmary. On 29 May, the GMC announced that it had concluded that many of the charges against the doctors were proved. It has taken further time to consider what action to take against the doctors concerned. Today, it has struck off two of them, Mr. Wisheart and Dr. Roylance, and censured Mr. Dhasmana. I have therefore taken the earliest possible opportunity to come to the House to announce that I have decided to set up a public inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol royal infirmary.
The inquiry will be established under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977. I hope that everyone concerned will co-operate with it. The inquiry will be chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy, professor of health law, ethics and policy at University college London. He is an eminent lawyer and expert in medical, legal and ethical issues. He has written extensively on problems arising from the care of severely disabled new-born babies. He has chaired the expert advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation and the advisory group on rabies and quarantine. He was a member of the expert advisory group on AIDS.
Under the National Health Service Act 1977, as chairman of the public inquiry, Professor Kennedy will have the power to require witnesses to attend the inquiry, to give evidence on oath and to produce documents. Criminal penalties are available against any who refuse to do so.
I intend to announce the other members of the inquiry and its detailed terms of reference very soon. Today I can make it clear that the inquiry will examine all aspects of what went wrong at Bristol. It will identify any professional, management and organisational failures and make recommendations to safeguard patients and their families in future.
I have had three meetings with the representatives of parents of children who died or suffered brain damage following heart surgery at Bristol royal infirmary. I was deeply impressed by their grief at what had happened to their children, by their dissatisfaction with how they—the parents—had been treated since, and by their disillusion with the clinical, professional and management arrangements which failed to deliver the standards of treatment and care that everyone has come to expect from the national health service. We owe it to them to ensure that the public inquiry gets to the bottom of what went wrong in Bristol—that all the facts are exposed and responsibility is identified. We also owe it to them to try to complete the inquiry within a reasonable period so that they can make a new start in their lives. We owe it to them and everyone else in our country to make sure that lessons are learned so that such a tragedy never occurs again.
The Government are not going to wait for the outcome of the inquiry before taking action to put in place new machinery for setting and maintaining clinical standards

in the national health service. As we spelled out in December in our White Paper, "The New NHS", we are introducing a whole range of measures.
We will establish a national institute for clinical excellence to set national standards. No such organisation exists at present. We will place a duty of clinical governance on NHS trusts. They do not have such a duty at present. To make sure that the new national standards are being met, we will establish a commission for health improvement. There is no such organisation at present. We will require all hospital doctors to participate in national external audit. There is no such requirement at present.
We will enable all patients and their GPs to get information on treatment success rates at their local hospital. They have no such right at the moment. All those measures have been welcomed by the Bristol parents. They have been welcomed by the medical, nursing and midwifery professions. They will be included in our forthcoming national health service Bill. Where legally possible, we will proceed with some of the changes even before the Bill becomes law.
As I said when I met them last Friday to the representatives of the Bristol parents, the measures already in train and any further changes which result from the public inquiry will be too late to save their children; but I think I was speaking on behalf of us all when I expressed to the parents my hope that they would gain at least some small consolation from the knowledge that the lessons learned from what their children had suffered should mean that nothing like it ever happens again.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Opposition broadly welcome the Secretary of State's statement and the measures that he proposes to take. In particular, we welcome the speed with which he is setting up the promised independent inquiry. We also wish to extend our sympathy to the parents and relatives of all the children who died; and I can assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition will assist in any way we can in preventing such a tragedy from occurring again. I of course accept that neither he nor anyone else can give absolute guarantees.
I have some specific questions which I hope the Secretary of State will accept in the spirit of co-operation that I have just outlined. The role played by the chief executive of the hospital gives rise to concern. Recently, the Secretary of State said that under future auditing arrangements doctors will have to share their results with their senior colleagues—but who will guard the guardians? Clearly in this case such a procedure would not have worked.
The right hon. Gentleman has already announced his intention to publish mortality rates for hospitals, another measure that the Opposition have broadly welcomed. How is it intended to interpret such results, to make that interpretation comprehensible, and to make it available to the public? Transparency is essential—we welcome it—but by itself it is no use, unless it is backed up by the choice to allow patients to go elsewhere. Given the Secretary of State's arrangements for primary care groups and for the ways in which doctors will have to follow the contract patterns laid down by PCGs, how will he maintain the choice which must follow transparency?
The right hon. Gentleman will also, I am sure, accept that many agencies, not just the doctors or the hospital, were involved in this case—among them the health


authority, the Department of Health, whose advice was apparently disregarded, and the Royal College of Surgeons. Will the inquiry examine the role played by each and every agency and body involved in this case; and will it then consider the appropriateness of self-regulation?
For how long is the inquiry expected to sit, and roughly when may we expect its results? Will the inquiry be able to recommend disciplinary action, if appropriate, except in the cases of those who have already been the subject of the General Medical Council inquiry?
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that one issue thrown up by the case concerns due information being available to parents or other responsible adults, but clearly they must know not just the success rates at their local hospital but the success rates elsewhere for equivalent operations with equivalent chances of success. Will he make the giving of that sort of information absolutely mandatory for surgery of this order of magnitude?

Mr. Dobson: The chief executive in this case is one of the doctors who was subject to disciplinary proceedings, so, to some extent at least, his role as a medical practitioner has been dealt with by the GMC. His roles as chief executive and as a doctor will be the subject of investigation by the inquiry.
The right hon. Lady asked whether hospital arrangements would be adequate and whether people would, in effect, police themselves. I thought that I had made it clear in my statement that that would not happen. For the first time in the history of the NHS, we shall place a duty of clinical governance on the chief executive of every trust. Mr. Roylance did not have that duty before. We will put in place a system of national audit for all doctors' activities in every hospital, and establish a commission for health improvement which will ensure that national standards, once set, are kept. For the first time in the history of the NHS there will be people outside the hospitals checking—that is a step forward.
It is only right and proper from everyone's point of view that mortality statistics should be sensibly comparable. A system that compared mortality rates for standard operations with rates for extremely difficult, complex operations—often carried out on patients who are profoundly ill for other reasons—would be extremely foolish. That is why we have sought throughout our considerations to carry with us the people in the medical profession who are determined to raise standards.
The statistics will be available, for the very first time, to patients and GPs, who have never before had access to the figures. There will thus be greater choice and better-informed choice than ever before.
The inquiry will be able to look at every aspect of what happened in Bristol and come up with recommendations in respect of Bristol—including disciplinary proceedings if that is thought right—and in respect of ensuring more generally that such incidents never happen again.
Finally, Professor Kennedy and I would like to keep the proceedings of the inquiry as short as possible, commensurate with doing a thorough job. I hope that the lawyers involved in it will bear it in mind that one of

the inquiry's objectives is to draw a line under all this so that all the families involved can start their lives over again.

Dr. Doug Naysmith: On behalf of the people of Bristol and the south-west, I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome his statement. I assure him that this sad, sorrowful and, in some respects, sordid affair has been of great concern to patients and parents in my constituency and other parts of Bristol. We should not forget to congratulate Steve Bolsin, one of the anaesthetists concerned, who played a great part in bringing the affair to public recognition.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that public inquiries sometimes take far too long, to the benefit of no one except, perhaps, lawyers? Will he assure me that he will try to ensure that the inquiry reports as soon as possible and that its terms of reference are drawn accordingly? Does he agree also that the Government's policies on external clinical audit, quality consultation and a commission for health improvement will ensure that such tragedies will be much less likely to occur in future?

Mr. Dobson: I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his illness, and I hope that he will maintain his usual rude health.
I share my hon. Friend's concern, which I have already expressed, about the possibility of the inquiry dragging on at enormous length. The chairman of the inquiry will have to exercise discipline, but there must be a great deal of self-discipline from the legal advisers of those who are represented. I repeat that we must get on with the inquiry as quickly as possible—provided, at all times, that people have the opportunity to have their say in the matter. One of the objections of the parents all along is that they have not been able to have their say.
I welcome my hon. Friend's support for our proposals for raising quality of performance in the national health service, which we have been discussing at length and in great detail with the representatives of the medical, nursing and midwifery professions. They share our hopes and aspirations that we can make sure that the arrangements in the national health service augment those in the professions, and that the professions' arrangements are considerably smartened up.

Dr. Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the statement and warmly welcome the announcement of the public inquiry and the choice of its chairman.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), who has been intimately involved in dealing with the families' concerns on this matter, is at the General Medical Council with his constituents and regrets that he cannot be here. He has asked me to pass on his thanks for the setting up of the inquiry.
Is there some way of ensuring that the inquiry has a smooth progress so that, at each stage, there is an end in sight for bereaved families and so that there is no doubt about whether their concerns will ever be heard? If the national audit is to be made compulsory for medical staff, will there be support in terms of resources, particularly extra staff and consultants, in the light of the British Medical Association's warning yesterday about the shortage of consultants and the stress and pressure under which medical staff work? 


Do the Government have any plans for specific protection for medical whistleblowers, such as the anaesthetist involved in this case, because there is still, I regret to say, a culture of fear, particularly among junior medical staff, about expressing concerns about the competence of their seniors? It would reassure many families, as well as NHS staff, if the Government could demonstrate that they are aware of that problem and will tackle it.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the appointment of Professor Kennedy. It has been my object since I have had contact with the parents to try to make sure that any process of inquiry satisfies them and—however hurt they may be by what has happened to their children—in the end leaves them feeling that at least they have had the opportunity to be heard and to find out what happened to their children and who was responsible.
External audit has the support of the medical profession. The hon. Gentleman jumps too quickly in asking for further resources. Doing things properly is cheaper than doing them badly. If the operations in Bristol had been a success, millions of pounds would have been saved, as well as the lives of the children concerned.
Staff should no longer be too frightened to speak out—other than those at the top who may be trying to stop people speaking out—because we have told all health authorities and trusts that they must not apply the gagging clauses on staff that were introduced when the previous Government were in power.

Dan Norris: The General Medical Council's inquiry heard that, on at least three occasions, senior civil servants in the Department of Health were informed of the tragedy that was unfolding. Despite those warnings, the then Secretary of State was not informed and the operations continued. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the public inquiry, which is very much welcomed, will leave no stone unturned in finding the truth, even if that means that stones must be turned in the Department of Health?

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I know that some of the parents concerned would like to thank him for his actions on their behalf. The inquiry will be failing in its duties if it does not identify shortcomings wherever they occurred, including at the highest or lowest level in the Department of Health. The inquiry is independent; it must examine all aspects of what went wrong because, if we are to prevent mistakes in future, we must identify what went wrong this time and make sure that the new arrangements will prevent it from happening again.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. He will know that it will be particularly welcomed by parents in my constituency.
My question concerns the inquiry's remit, particularly with regard to whistleblowers. Because of the nature and severity of this case, the GMC has taken specific action. When the conclusions are brought before the right hon. Gentleman, will he take into account the need for a system whereby the information on staff records, particularly

those of doctors at all levels—which one hopes would be made available as a result of such an inquiry—will also be made known when they apply for jobs in other hospitals and other areas?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady has raised that point with me in relation to the failure of the breast cancer screening system at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. We hope to deal with that matter in the measures that we are introducing to improve clinical standards in the national health service. The present arrangements for checking the background of doctors who move from one hospital to another have proved to be inadequate in several cases, and that clearly needs to be sorted out.
We need to ensure that professional credit is gained by all concerned seeking to secure the highest clinical standards, so that it is clear that the ethics of the profession are to consider, first, the interests of the patients and, in all circumstances, not to allow that ethical obligation to be overwhelmed by any sense of loyalty to colleagues or concern about the reputation of the hospital. That seems to have been a problem in Bristol and other areas.

Ms Jean Corston: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and hope that it will bring to an end the sorry tale surrounding paediatric cardiac surgery in Bristol. Does he agree that the remit of the inquiry should include the future position of chief executives of health care trusts? One of the difficulties that many of us had was that we knew that the then chief executive was part of the same group of surgeons, who were acting in a self-protective way.
Reference has been made to whistleblowers. As long as I live, I shall never forget the look on the face of Dr. Steve Bolsin, the anaesthetist in the case, when he came to see me and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo)—who is in her place—and said, "If you were going to put a child to sleep tomorrow, how would you feel if you felt pretty certain that the child would not wake up?" He is not simply a whistleblower; he is the one person to emerge from the case with any credit. The great tragedy is that his undoubted skill and commitment have been lost to this country, because he was squeezed out of anaesthetics in the United Kingdom and has had to earn his living in Australia.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents sending their children for paediatric cardiac surgery at Bristol now need have no qualms, because of the excellent work of Dr. Ash Pawade and his team?

Mr. Dobson: On the principled stand of the anaesthetist to whom my hon. Friend referred, he is, as she says, one of the few people who comes out with any credit. I hope that his role and the question of how he came to be pushed out will be adequately covered by the inquiry, and that those responsible for pushing him out will be identified.
With regard to the future position of chief executives, it is our intention to place on all health trusts an obligation of clinical governance, so the chief executive will have that personal obligation. I hope that that will strengthen the position of chief executives and break any


relationships with former colleagues. They will have to stand separately on clinical standards, as they do on finance. That can only benefit patients.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State's statement. The most important point for the future relates to medical and clinical audit. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the scheme that was introduced by the previous Government but which sank without trace, and learn from the apparent mistakes in that system? He may know that for many years, on behalf of my constituent, Dr. Pull, I have been trying to get clinical audit set up. Will he look into the matter of resources? He said that more resources were not needed, but unless he grabs hold of some resources and makes sure that they are used for medical audit, that money will simply go into direct patient care. In the long term, clinical audit will save money and lives.

Mr. Dobson: It is the case that the previous Government set in train arrangements for clinical audit but, as the hon. Gentleman said, little came of that and it cost a large sum of money. There is clinical audit at present in the health service. Some of it is improving, but most of it is voluntary. It is consuming large sums, and is not well organised or comprehensive. That is why our proposals for changes in clinical governance, the establishment of the commission for health improvement and the other measures that I mentioned in my statement should improve matters, introduce better organisation and ensure that the money going into medical audit is spent to some effect, rather than being frittered away, as has happened in the past.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one of those who has met Professor Kennedy in another context, may I welcome the establishment of an inquiry and his headship of it? It will be important not just to Bristol, but nationally. May I, however, sound a note of caution? Let us hope that what happened in Bristol will not spill over and become a disincentive to surgeons to undertake risky operations. That is a worry of some of my distinguished surgeon constituents working in Edinburgh.
Let us be cautious about the idea that there has been great success in Scotland for the publication of hospital mortality rates. Some of us think that league tables are better suited to football than to mortality rates in hospitals.
Finally, can my right hon. Friend comment on the attendance of a member of his Department at the lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton on medical negligence? I have sent my right hon. Friend a draft of the lecture, in the hope that the issue of medical negligence will be opened up in the light of the lecture by Sir Philip Otton, who probably has more experience on the subject than anyone else in Britain.

Mr. Dobson: As ever, my hon. Friend raises a number of cogent points and identifies dilemmas that we all face. It is not intended that the publication of mortality or other performance figures should deter doctors from performing risky operations, if such operations are needed. Our intention—and our discussions with the medical profession suggest that doctors agree—is to ensure that

any statistics that are published properly distinguish between the relatively simple operation on a relatively healthy patient, and the immensely complex operation on a relatively unhealthy patient. That can be done, provided that the analysis is confined to cardiac surgery. We cannot compare hip joint replacements with cardiac surgery, as some people in the consumer movement seem to suggest.
We all have doubts about publishing information about the outcomes of operations but, if the medical profession and the management of hospitals are to have the information available to them as part of the process of raising standards, it is only legitimate to allow general practitioners and patients also to have access to that information.

Mr. Dalyell: It all depends on who does the interpretation, and how it is done.

Mr. Dobson: We must remember that no patient gets access direct to a surgeon; patients' access is only through a general practitioner, who should be able to conduct the necessary interpretation. I share my hon. Friend's concern about that.
On my hon. Friend's separate point about medical negligence, I am profoundly concerned at the growing involvement of the legal profession in medical negligence matters related to the national health service. The bills keep soaring and we must act. First, we must try to reduce the number of legitimate complaints. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to raise quality. Next, we must put in place arrangements to ensure that, if something goes wrong, patients get a prompt explanation and apology and, if there has been negligence on the part of people in the national health service, patients receive legitimate compensation without having to resort to the courts. It is worth putting it on record that when people have resorted to the courts in cases of medical negligence and there is a judgment by the court, 80 per cent. of the cases are lost. In eight out of 10 cases, people were told by lawyers that they stood a good chance, but when the case came to court, it failed.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speed with which he has reacted, which I am sure will go some way to assuage the anguish of the parents of the children involved in this tragic case. I also warmly congratulate him on the steps that he has taken to ensure more effective and transparent clinical monitoring. Does he agree that it is very important that people realise that this case, although a terrible tragedy, is very much not the norm, and that the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) need to be well taken? Does he agree that, generally, the doctors involved in such surgery in this country are absolutely brilliant and do a fantastic and remarkable job, for which we should all be very grateful?

Mr. Dobson: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is indeed the case that most people in this country, rightly, have confidence in the quality of treatment and care that they will receive in the national health service. That is of immense credit to all the people who provide that care; we want to help them improve it.
I would not wish to do anything that made people feel that they were at greater risk than they really are, but I should make a further point. In the nature of things, major


operations are risky. Things do sometimes go wrong. They will always continue to go wrong. We have a duty to put in place a system that very quickly picks up when things are going wrong and does something about it. That attribute was singularly lacking in Bristol.

Mr. David Drew: May I, like other hon. Members, very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? I am sure that he is aware that the impact of the tragedy goes well beyond the immediate Bristol area, and affects the whole of the south-west. One of the criticisms voiced about the GMC inquiry was that the parents who were able to give evidence came from a fairly selective group. Will he ensure that parents who have perhaps been unable to give evidence get the opportunity to talk to the inquiry?

Mr. Dobson: Yes, I certainly shall. Having talked to representatives of the parents three times, I know that they are greatly concerned to ensure that all those parents who wish to have a say, have a say, and in some cases to find out in considerable detail what happened to their child. But there are other parents who positively do not want to go into the detail of what happened to their child. We must try to ensure that, at the end of the inquiry, all the parents feel that they have had a fair say, and that the inquiry has got to the truth. If we can do so, it will be a very useful achievement, and I hope that it will bring some comfort to the parents.

Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. However, as a parent of a child who died of cardiac surgery during the time of the Bristol cases—although, fortunately, not in Bristol—and who tried at the time to get performance data on the centre where the operation was performed and failed, and indeed was refused; and who subsequently in the House has tried to get general performance data on the national health service in general and failed, may I say to my right hon. Friend that the Bristol case, although appalling, has wider lessons for the national health service?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there has been a conspiracy of silence, involving both the professionals and the politicians, on the issue of clinical performance? Will he therefore ensure that the terms of the inquiry that he announced today are broad enough to deal with that issue? Finally, as an immediate response to the Bristol case, will he today put in place provision to ensure that the performance data for all the centres performing paediatric cardiac surgery are now made available to parents?

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been aware of his family circumstances, and I know the efforts that he has been making in this matter. To some extent there has been a conspiracy of silence. I believe that, in many cases, it has been an unconscious conspiracy of silence, in that people have felt, "We never gave the figures in the past; why should we give them now?" However, in fairness to the medical profession—certainly since we came to power—my ministerial colleagues and I would say that the profession has never been as committed as it now is to raising performance standards, recognising that targets will have to be set and agreeing to put in place arrangements to ensure that those targets are met.
In the end, we must depend on the surgeons to set the standards. It is no good asking anyone else, "What is the best way to do a liver transplant?" The only person one can get the standard from is the person who does liver transplants. Having set the standard, though, they must maintain those standards; that is the important point.
I cannot agree casually, at the Dispatch Box, to release figures for children's heart operations throughout the country, partly for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave. If the material has not been prepared in a form that is properly comparable, it could be extremely misleading. I want to ensure that the information is put together in a properly comparable way and made available, but I must take great care to ensure that the idea of assembling and publishing that information is not brought into disrepute by publishing misleading figures early in the process.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the many families in south Wales, including my constituency, who were bereaved in this dreadful way. The worst part of their torment is the belief that their child's life may have been sacrificed to improve the skills of surgeons who were semi-competent and never became competent.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asks who will guard the guardians. The sad fact is that we do not even have guardians in our health service now. For many years many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), have been asking for systems of audit, of examination, and of transparency, similar to those that are available in Scandinavian countries, to be set up in our health service.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the fact that, throughout the health service, we have that information. We have information on, for example, the number of drugs used and the dreadful over-prescription of drugs among elderly people. I urge him to channel all his energies in that direction and not to be distracted by some of the other superficial measures of the efficiency of the health service, because it is in transparency that the greater reforms will take place.

Mr. Dobson: I think 1 can safely say to my hon. Friend that my ministerial team and I have devoted a huge amount of effort, thought and time to consulting the professions on how best to assemble accurate and useful data which will lead to raised standards of performance in the health service, and which will be meaningful, and not misleading, to members of the public—and to general practitioners. We have put a great deal of effort into that, and we intend to continue to do so. Generally speaking, the statistical system within the Department of Health is deplorable; that is one reason why we need to take great care in publishing almost any information that it has, because it could be very, very misleading.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary of State on the measures that the Government have undertaken to take to deal with this very important problem. As someone who, for more than 30 years, has practised in medical negligence cases, I endorse his observation that some 80 per cent. of legal medical negligence cases fail. However, those who grant legal aid in many such cases


are under a duty merely to determine whether the evidence shows not a case that is bound to win, but a prima facie case. Many members of the legal profession sometimes encourage litigation when it is not altogether justified.
In relation to the issue of league tables, it is very important that we compare like with like. Not simply cardiovascular surgery but other operations within that specific discipline vary greatly in the degree of expertise that is necessary to ensure success. One could easily find that the centres of absolute excellence are engaged in the most high-risk surgery and are at the frontier of surgical progress. One would hesitate to engage in any measures that brought about the practice of defensive medicine or defensive surgery. That point must be kept carefully in view.

Mr. Dobson: I welcome the views of any lawyer who is willing to accept that, the more we can manage to keep lawyers out of the health service, the better. There are several hospitals in my constituency, including Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children. For many sick children, it is the hospital of last resort. The surgeons at that hospital sometimes operate on children who have had two or three operations at one or more other hospitals and they frequently do not succeed in preserving the health or saving the lives of the children concerned. Therefore, I have always been acutely aware of the necessity, when looking at any production or publication of figures, of ensuring that the complexity of operations and the state of the patients are reflected properly.
The president of the Royal College of Surgeons and the immediate past president support our proposals. I believe that we are proceeding fairly quickly and making substantial efforts to carry with us the people who, in the end, must do the operations. The last thing I want is for surgeons in the operating theatre to be thinking, "What will the lawyers or the jury think?" They should be thinking only, "What is best for the patient, here and now?"

Point of Order

Mr. Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Wednesday 6 May, during Prime Minister's questions, the Leader of the Opposition sought to gain an undertaking from the Prime Minister in relation to the Government's intentions as far as the release of prisoners was concerned. Column 711 of Hansard shows that he asked:
Does he"—
that is, the Prime Minister—
agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
A Press Association report of the Prime Minister's response shows that, early in his response, he said:
The answer to your question is, yes, of course it is the case that both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and the early release of prisoners".
Those words are not contained in the Hansard of that day's proceedings. I checked with the video recording unit of the House, and I found that it is the Press Association report and not Hansard that is accurate.
The words that are important and significant have been expunged from the record of the House. Clearly, someone acting for, or on behalf of, the Prime Minister has tampered with the record of proceedings in the House. Is it in order for such a serious extraction and deletion from the record of proceedings to take place by the Government, or indeed by any other Member of the House?

Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has raised an important issue that could impact on the peace process in Northern Ireland, and which could have implications for the integrity of our proceedings in the House. As the stakes are quite high, is not the best way to proceed for you, Madam Speaker, to ask the Editor of Hansard for a full report into the issue that has been raised, and for you then to report back to the House?

Madam Speaker: I intend to do just that. We shall now proceed.

Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, I have given a ruling. I am very grateful to the hon. Members who have raised the matter with me. I have the documentation, and I intend to look at it as soon as I am able to do so.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill

As amended (in the Committee), considered.

Clause 3

APPLICATIONS

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
'in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
`(e) has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.

Marjorie Mowlam: Amendment No. 2 touches on the factors that the Bill requires me to take into account in deciding whether an organisation should be designated under clause 3(8). The four factors in clause 3(9) translate into the Bill the four factors set out in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Balmoral in Belfast during the heart of the referendum campaign on 14 May. He promised that the Bill would contain them, and it does.
The amendment follows helpful discussions between the Government and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party. The right hon. Gentleman has put the point to the Government quite fairly that, while the four factors currently set out in clause 3(9) fully reflect the Prime Minister's speech, an addition to clause 3(9)(d) could helpfully put it beyond any doubt that the full co-operation referred to there was
in implementing the Decommissioning section
of the Good Friday agreement.
The Government have made it clear all along that we take a flexible approach to the Bill. We want to proceed, as far as possible, on the basis of consensus—as we always sought to do in supporting the previous Government. When there are amendments that are consistent with the agreement, we shall naturally want to consider them carefully. This was such a point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann for raising it in a helpful manner. We can respond to amendments in line with the agreement, but we cannot add to or take away from the agreement, or insert preconditions or tests that are not there.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: I shall finish this point; then I shall certainly give way.
That would be to do exactly what we had told others cannot be done: to pick and choose among those bits of the agreement we like and those that we do not like. The fact is that all sides have bits they like in the agreement and bits that they do not like.

Mr. Hunter: In light of her comments about amendments that are consistent with the agreement being essentially acceptable to the Government, I fail to understand why, last Monday, amendment No. 1—which quoted paragraph 3 of page 20 of the decommissioning section of the agreement more or less exactly—was found unacceptable. It was virtually a quotation from the agreement.

Marjorie Mowlam: The key word is "virtually". The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that words make a difference in politics in Northern Ireland. When there has been consistency between amendments and the agreement, we have accepted them—in fact, we have accepted three or four amendments in the past week. When there is no such consistency, we have made that clear.
The whole agreement is what is important—cherry-picking is not a possibility. Therefore, I think that the only way forward is to see progress in implementing the agreement in toto. People can then see that, although they may find some parts of the agreement difficult—everyone faces some difficulties—progress is being made in implementing all elements of the agreement. It is very important that everyone knows that there must be progress in implementing all sections of the agreement. I hope that the amendment standing in my name makes that clear.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Amendment No. 21, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):: Order. We are not considering amendment No. 21, because it has not been selected. Therefore, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) cannot mention it.

Marjorie Mowlam: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It may be helpful if I say something about how I intend to approach the operation of clauses 3(8) and (9). The agreement requires:
Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements.
That test is reproduced in clause 3(8)(b).
Clause 3(9) requires me "in particular" to "take into account" four separate factors. That fully reflects what the Prime Minister promised in his Balmoral speech on 14 May, when he said:
In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the Agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account.
He then set out the four factors now reproduced in legislative language.
Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the phrase, "take into account", albeit the very language used by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign. In reaching the overall judgment required of me under the


Bill on which terrorist organisations to designate, I shall treat the four factors in clause 3(9) extremely seriously. As the Prime Minister said in his Balmoral speech:
These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgement—a judgement which will necessarily become more rigorous over time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can the Secretary of State help the House by saying what her approach will be as regards subsections (8) and (9)? She will know that the powers are permissive. Is she in a position to give the House an undertaking to the effect that, if the organisations are, in her judgment, terrorist organisations within the criteria set out in subsection (9), she will then specify them as terrorist organisations? As she will appreciate, the Bill does not impose an obligation on her to do so.

Marjorie Mowlam: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. What I am doing is specifying those organisations that are on ceasefire. By default, those that are not part of that are not on ceasefire, and their prisoners will not he considered for release.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the right hon. Lady is taking my point, but it would be enormously helpful if she could tell the House that, if she concludes that the organisation in question offends against the criteria set out in subsection (9), she will specify it as a terrorist organisation.

Marjorie Mowlam: Let me be straight with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: he is trying to return to the debate we had last week on proscription. That is not what the amendment is about. Proscription relates to the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act; the amendments relate specifically to the ceasefire.
The fact that the four factors are set out clearly in the Bill means that I cannot and shall not ignore them. I shall treat them with the seriousness and weight demanded in reaching a decision on whether a particular organisation has or has not established a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. I shall do so not just because the factors are in the Bill, and not just because the Prime Minister expects it, but above all because the people of Northern Ireland rightly expect the most careful examination based on those factors, to establish whether violence has indeed been given up for good.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: I have already taken a fair number of interventions.
The decision will be for me, and me alone. However, it will clearly be appropriate for me, bearing in mind the four factors set out in the Bill, to listen to the advice of the Chief Constable, the General Office Commanding and my other security advisers. I shall also take into account any relevant reports from the International Commission on Decommissioning. It may be helpful if I make it clear that the Bill does not give the International Commission on Decommissioning any new function or deciding role in relation to the release of prisoners. It is for me to make judgments in those areas, taking into account the available information on a range of factors.
As the Good Friday agreement states, the International Commission on Decommissioning already has the task of monitoring, reviewing and verifying progress on the decommissioning of illegal arms, and reporting to both Governments at regular intervals. My judgment will be informed by those reports as well as by a wide range of other information, but the decision on which organisations to designate as terrorist organisations for the purposes of the Bill is mine alone. It cannot be shared with another body.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State has stated that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. As she would know, an organisation called Direct Action Against Drugs is very much involved in violence in west Belfast. Has she been advised by the RUC that Direct Action Against Drugs is a front for, or in any other way involved with, the IRA? If she has, will she take that into account?

Marjorie Mowlam: We have made it clear a number of times in the House that discussing specific security information is not helpful. As I have stated on numerous occasions, if I have information from my advisers—security, GOC, or Army, I will act in line with the factors in the agreement. I have just stated forcefully that that is what I intend to do. I will not shirk from that responsibility. I have taken those decisions in working up to the Good Friday agreement.
We have said that, if organisations breached the ceasefire, we would throw them out of the talks. Two of them did so, and I did. Thus, those actions have been taken, and we shall take them again. The hon. Gentleman's example of a terrorist organisation using proxy organisations is stated as one of the four factors, and it is on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make a little more progress. I have taken a lot of interventions and we have a three-hour debate before us when hon. Members will have time to speak.
The tough decisions that I have just stated will be taken. I shall be prepared to take them in line with the factors that I have outlined in the Bill.
I shall resume my seat so that others can participate in the debate. I commend the amendment to the House.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the advance that the Government have made, which has been brought about because of the pressure maintained in the House and elsewhere. It would be wrong of me not to welcome it. We understand the points that the Secretary of State has made. However, I believe that we have not gone far enough.
During our debate on Monday, we were told that we should take the Bill as an act of faith—I thought that we were debating an Act of Parliament. In an Act of Parliament, the regulations and demands should be clear so that there are no misunderstandings. Therefore clarity, as well as flexibility, is extremely important in dealing


with an agreement. At times, I felt that the Government had adopted as their motto that old adage that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. We must clarify some of our thinking.
My hon. Friends and other hon. Members have tabled an amendment that strengthens the Government's hand, and makes it abundantly clear what is required of people. I have been disappointed with some of the ministerial replies, particularly during yesterday's debate, when there was a tendency to use an argument ad hominem, dealing with the person who was speaking rather than the issues. That is always a sign of a weak argument.
As a result, we have come full circle: this evening, issues about security have been raised—they were not specific, but asked for direct understanding—and we have been told that the Government are not in a position to discuss the advice that security chiefs give. We were dealing with our understanding of what was happening in the community, which is widely known. Books have been written about it.
The Minister of State appears to disagree with me. Perhaps he is unaware that two members of public in Northern Ireland are engaged in a lawsuit in the United States over libel appearing in a book from Sinn Fein sources.
To suggest that people do not know what is happening implies that the Minister is living on a different plane from the rest of us. We have lived with it for 30 years, and we know what is happening. We are aware of the tragedy. We have only to look around the House to see a coat of arms to remind us of what has happened over the 30 years. We will not take that kind of lecturing.
I do not know whether I am misreading the situation, but it seems that we have a Government who wallow in leaks as the spin doctors go to town to try to mislead and confuse the electorate, and that, when we raise issues in the House, we are simply discounted. I should therefore like to underline why we believe it is necessary to strengthen the legislation.
Some hon. Members will know the acronym TUAS—tactical use of the armed struggle. Some years back, the official IRA realised that it was going nowhere with the armed struggle, and decided that it would specialise again in the political arena. It did not say, however, that it was doing away with its weapons; it said that they were not useful at that moment, and that the political arena was where it could advance most.
Significantly, the weapons have been used over the years for intimidation, violence and fund raising for the official IRA. It moved its political front from republican clubs to the Workers party, and then had to change again to the Democratic Left when it was revealed that the Workers party was being funded by some of the night work of the official IRA, using intimidation and weaponry. It is because of our experience that we believe it is important that the legislation should be strengthened.
I pay tribute, and have paid tribute, to members of the Workers party who have paid a tremendous price for their attempt to move into the political arena. I welcome any movement in that direction, but we have to have evidence that it is more than a glib assurance that they are moving into the political arena.
That is why, in September 1993, when Sinn Fein-IRA were telling the Government of the time that they were standing in the way of peace, I challenged Sinn Fein-IRA, if they really wished to take the path of peace, to take the first steps, because the Government were not waging war on the people of Ireland, any more than the Government are waging war now. We have always talked about criminal terrorism, but those involved said it was a war. I challenged Sinn Fein-IRA: if their members wished to become bona fide politicians, they had to turn away from the use of weapons and become like the rest of us, using the tongue and our other facilities to advance our case.
Four and three quarter years later, not one weapon has been handed in, because, we are told, it looks like surrendering. Those involved need not hand one weapon to the British Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They can hand weapons back where most of them already are, in the Republic of Ireland. They can hand them back to the Garda Siochana or to the pan-nationalist front which co-operated in bringing them into the political field, or to those who, through TACA, at an early stage helped to raise funds for and arm the Provisional IRA. There is no need to surrender; they can hand the weapons back. However, no one can tell me that ground-to-air missiles and Semtex are defensive weapons; they are weapons of offence.
If Sinn Fein-IRA were going down the road of peace, this resolution would help them to move forward. I should have liked the Government to go further than the rather wide terms of the amendment, as we were told at an earlier stage that the resolution was already in the Bill. They have now tabled the amendment, perhaps as a varnish to please certain people, so that, as the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) says, they believe that they have gained a concession as a result of the pressure applied within and outside the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall speak to amendment No. 1 which stands in the name of the Unionists and some of their colleagues in the Conservative party. It makes the position absolutely clear. It deals with the issue up front, so that ordinary people can understand what we are about. It states that the Secretary of State shall take into account whether an organisation
has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.
The spokesman for the official Opposition asked the Minister twice yesterday whether he could say that, under the terms of the Act, as of 22 May 2000 it could be the case that not one weapon had been handed back. We go to all this trouble in the House to put the legislation together and enact it as an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet the Minister was not prepared to say what is a fact—that, as at the year 2000, all the prisoners will be out but not one gun need have been surrendered.


There has been much argument in the House about what the Prime Minister did or did not say, but what is important is the question he was asked. The Leader of the Opposition asked him:
I also welcome the assurances that he has given in the past about the conditions to be attached to the early release of prisoners. Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?
According to Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
It is essential that any agreement is signed up to in full. The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
I went to the archives of the House today and listened to what the Prime Minister did say. What did he say? In answer to the question, he said:
The answer to your question is, yes".
What was that question? The question referred to substantial decommissioning of weapons. The Prime Minister added:
of course it is the case that both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and the early release of prisoners".
He said that organisations could not take seats until there was substantial decommissioning, and that prisoners could not be released until there was substantial decommissioning.
Why has that disappeared? Why do the Government not stand by what the Prime Minister said? They went to Northern Ireland to campaign, and wrote on the walls what would happen. We all know that no such thing could happen. We had an agreement, which cannot be altered. It is a multi-party agreement. It cannot be altered by the Prime Minister or by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). It stands, and it has to stand. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but what he has said in the House on this issue is right. The agreement cannot be changed.
In the referendum, people were asked to vote on the strength of promises made by the Prime Minister. We now find that the Prime Minister could not meet those promises, and they disappeared from Hansard.

6 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows that Madam Speaker is looking into that matter. We shall not come to any conclusions until Madam Speaker reports back to the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: With respect, I have a right in the House to say what I know. If people say that what I have said is not right, they can look at the video and hear the words. As a Member of Parliament, I have a right to go to the archives, listen to the tapes and say what I saw. I am glad that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I do not want to take any rights away from him, but I appeal to him. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised a point of order

with Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker is going to look into the matter. Why do we not leave it until a conclusion is arrived at? That is all that I am saying.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am happy to accept what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to refer to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is telling the people of Northern Ireland that he has secured concessions. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) put out a statement—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the significance of the subject matter about which he was speaking is that the words in the amendment are the same as those uttered by the Prime Minister? We could have the absurd situation of the Government voting against the words that the Prime Minister used in his undertaking.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend has put it concisely, and has struck the nail on the head. Statements were put out last night in Northern Ireland by Members of Parliament who are not here, just as they were not here on Monday or yesterday. If they want to make a case, this is the place to argue it. This is the debating chamber of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They cannot come to defend what they are telling the people of my Province. My people are entitled to know the truth. Where does the truth lie? The people of Northern Ireland know that many of them were conned at the referendum, because they voted for things that were promised but could not be delivered.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect the question that I asked the Prime Minister? As the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, we are dealing with a multi-party agreement that cannot be altered, varied or amended without the consent of all the parties. The Prime Minister's answer was a complete fudge. There was a suggestion that the Government could do that which they are now saying they cannot do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. Surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know the truth. We are told that what the Prime Minister said can be carried out under the agreement.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during his look through the archives of the House, he also looked at Hansard of 15 June, when the Minister said:
The important thing is that what we are proposing is wholly compatible with the discussions surrounding the agreement, with what was said by the participants to the agreement and with the undertakings given at that time."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 45-46.]
That must mean that the Government amendment is compatible with the undertakings given at that time—to whomsoever they may have been given—and that the clear statements in amendment No. 1 are not.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I take that argument. The Government say that they are doing nothing new, but they are adding an amendment to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his friends are saying that


they have won a tremendous concession which means that we can all lie happily in our beds, there will be decommissioning, it will be radical, and before one man leaves prison, all will be well.
It will not be so. We know the evidence that came before the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs yesterday. We know that the Maze prison is going to close. We know that prisoners are already being allocated a time to leave. Everybody knows that. The Secretary of State might say that that is not happening, but she has said before that things would not happen and they did. This will happen.
The agreement on decommissioning does not say anything about what the Government say it means. The participants at the talks do not claim to be members of illegal organisations. Of course we know that some of them front such organisations, and we do not believe what they say. All they are asked to do is
to continue to work constructively".
That means that they must have been working constructively in the past. They never got any guns, but they were working hard and breaking sweat
constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission".
They are also asked
to use any influence they may have".
They are not asked to use the influence that they have, but
any influence they may have".
The agreement almost admits that they have no influence. Why do they not say, "We will use the influence we have"? It is all up in the air. The men will come out of the prisons, the arsenals will be there, and if they do not get their way, they will go to the arsenals. Some of us will then have the sad duty of attending the funerals.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said the reality about what we are going through in Northern Ireland. We are going through an agony. People are realising that the murderers of their kith and kin may be out in a few months. What comfort can we give those people? The only comfort we can give them is to keep those who murdered their kith and kin behind the walls.

Mr. Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that families of the victims of violence in Northern Ireland are already receiving phone calls from republicans telling them that the murderers are coming out, and are coming for them next? That is a frightening, terrible situation that those families have to suffer. The Minister may not like the fact, but I have such families in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is an experienced Member of Parliament. We have two amendments before us about decommissioning, not about people staying in gaol or getting out of gaol. We should not go any wider than that. Third Reading is coming up, when hon. Members may want to go wider, but they should not do so when debating the amendments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall satisfy you, Sir; I have finished what I have to say. I am sure that everybody will be happy. All I can say is that these things run into the

very quick of people in Northern Ireland. Sometimes people in the House do not realise that. They would if they had experienced our circumstances over the past 20 years. I was in the House when Labour Members spoke with great passion about the tragedy in Birmingham. Why should we in Northern Ireland be judged for speaking passionately, as we must if we are to be faithful to the people who sent us here to represent them?

Mr. Hogg: As you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments before the House, and I shall say something about them both.
It would be wrong to accept amendment No. 1, to which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke so passionately. If it is put to the vote, I shall oppose it. Although amendment No. 2 is of very little value, it is consistent with the language of the agreement and, on that basis, I shall not oppose it.
We are concerned with the relationship that should exist between the process of decommissioning and the release of prisoners. Several right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to create an explicit linkage between the process of decommissioning and the release of prisoners. I have a great deal of sympathy for the attitudes, thoughts and passions that underlie that argument. The release of prisoners, many of whom have committed the most odious of crimes, is very difficult to stomach. However, I take a somewhat different approach.
The House should first ask itself what is in the agreement—to identify the terms. Then, the House needs to ask itself whether the Bill is a fair reflection of the terms of the agreement. I commend that process to the House. It is all the more important that we should do just that and no more because the people of the Province were asked to vote in a referendum on the terms of the agreement.
It is true that the Prime Minister put a gloss on the terms of the agreement. I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim that the gloss was implausible. I think that the Prime Minister was trying to persuade people to vote for the agreement by purporting to support an interpretation of the agreement that does not lie on the face of the agreement. I do not think that that was a respectable thing to do. That said, all of us who read the agreement knew full well that there was no linkage in it between decommissioning and the release of prisoners.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that a fundamental and persuasive element in achieving the yes vote for the agreement, which everyone is said to support, was the behaviour of the Prime Minister in suggesting and implying that he could do something which, consistent with the terms of that agreement, he could not do? That was a fraud.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McCartney: I withdraw that remark.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please sit down? First, he has a habit of going on for far too long in an intervention. Secondly, he should not associate a right hon. Member of the House with


the term "fraud". The Prime Minister is a Member of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the courtesies of the House. If he is going to attack anyone, he must use moderate language and should at least notify the hon. Member concerned.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has finished his intervention.

Mr. Hogg: If I may, I should like to respond to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). It is right that the Prime Minister placed an interpretation on the language of the agreement that is not to be found in the agreement. It is also likely that a number of people—but not the majority—to whom he was speaking misunderstood the nature of the agreement as a consequence of what he said. Truth to tell, anybody who read the agreement knows full well that there is no linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners.

Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend, to whom I am listening very closely, agree that the agreement had to be all-embracing and a little vague so that everyone would come on board? The decommissioning part is very clear; I know that it is not specifically linked to prisoners. None the less, the document needs interpreting. I need it interpreting to a certain extent. Interpretation can surely come from no better person than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that the agreement was couched in somewhat ambivalent language—and that was intentional. The only provision on prisoners is to be found in paragraph 2 on page 25 of the agreement. There, there is linkage between a ceasefire and the release of prisoners, but there is no linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is not right. He should look to the paragraph that deals with decommissioning, which is to be found on page 20. He will find in paragraph 3 that it was contemplated that the process of decommissioning would go on for an extended period. There can be no question in the agreement of decommissioning being a condition precedent to the release of prisoners. I for one—and I hope the House, too—will not try unilaterally to vary the agreement by importing new terms. If we do that, the House should be sure that others will, particularly the IRA and other terrorist organisations. I am against such a process, although I understand and respect the motives.
I say to Ulster Members, with whom I have the greatest sympathy and often associate myself, that the House should not create conditions precedent that are not verifiable. Amendment No. 1 refers to substantial decommissioning as a condition precedent. What is meant by that? More particularly, how does one verify it? It is true that there are intelligence reports on how many weapons or explosives that this or that group may have, but there is no way of determining as a fact whether

decommissioning has happened at all or whether it is substantial or slight. It would be an absolute nonsense to put on the statute a condition precedent that is incapable of verification.

Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I, and everyone else, agree that, so far as possible, decommissioning should take place, and we want it to take place. Even if, as we all hope, the IRA—we have every reason to question this—decides to decommission arms, would not the response, certainly of those who are opposed to the agreement, and perhaps ourselves, be to ask: how do we know what is left? If it decommissions 10 or 15 per cent., opponents—including ourselves for that matter—would obviously say that 85 per cent. was left. Verification is indeed very important.

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think that there is any difference between us on that point. The issue is not capable of definition in any meaningful sense.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's own leader used that, so he should have an argument with his leader. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said to the Prime Minister:
until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
What does that mean? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's own leader should tell him what "substantially" and "radically" mean.

Mr. Hogg: I owe it to the House to give my best interpretation of the law and of the facts as we have to face them. That is what I am doing. I am telling the House—the hon. Member for North Antrim in particular—that the phrase "substantial decommissioning" is incapable of verification and, for that reason, among others, should not be put on the face of the statute. My own belief is that, although decommissioning may follow a cessation of murder and violence, it cannot be a precondition; it may be a condition subsequent, but it will never be a precondition.
Amendment No. 2 is a pretty harmless amendment. For at least two reasons, I think that it achieves virtually nothing. It may not be meant to, and I am prepared not to oppose it on that basis, but let us be clear that it achieves nothing. We are determining here the designation of terrorist organisations. The provisions in subsections (8) and (9) are permissive, not mandatory: there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to designate as terrorist an organisation that falls foul of subsection (9). I asked the Secretary of State to give an undertaking to the House that she would designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation if it fell foul of subsection (9), but she pushed me aside and failed to give that undertaking.
In any event, the phrase "have regard to"—or "take account of'; they mean the same—means nothing in legal terms. It merely means that the Secretary of State must consider the point, not that she is bound by factual conclusions that flow from it. I concede that her amendment is consistent with the spirit of the agreement, but let us plainly state that it adds nothing whatsoever to


the Bill. I shall not oppose the right hon. Lady's amendment, but I am bound to say that it is of little weight.

Mr. Robathan: I always listen to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) with great interest. He made an eloquent and logical speech, but it was overly legalistic, given that the issue is one of interpretation. We must look closely at the interpretation of the agreement. I suggest that, in the referendum, the voters of Northern Ireland were looking to the interpretation given to them by the Prime Minister. In my opinion—the Secretary of State might disagree—they believed that there must be a linkage between prisoner releases and decommissioning.
I have read the agreement closely and I should like to quote one line, from paragraph 1, on decommissioning:
the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation"—
"the resolution", not the start of the process. Of course people can hide a pike in the thatch and of course there are illegal weapons—there are illegal weapons scattered across the United Kingdom and, regrettably, they are used in crime every day—but we can make a sensible stab at knowing how much decommissioning has taken place. So far, nothing has taken place.
On 1 September 1994, the IRA declared a ceasefire. We were all pleased, because it must be better that there is peace than that there is war; but, on 9 February 1996, it ended. Then, there was another ceasefire; but, come the end of last year, two people were killed and the ceasefire ended again. For the deaths of those two people, the IRA was given three weeks out of the talks. That was not a particularly fierce punishment. Sinn Fein is still part of the process and is likely to take part in elections and to have representatives elected to the assembly in the near future.
During the whole process, there has been no end to the punishment beatings, nor an end to the use of weapons in those punishment beatings and in other violent incidents. It is not only the IRA—we know that some loyalist organisations are involved. In response to an intervention from me, the Secretary of State said that she had expelled Sinn Fein and the UDP—I think it was the UDP—from the talks, but that was not sufficient and they have continued their violence. It had no impact on the violence committed by paramilitaries.
I put it to the Secretary of State that peace requires firm foundations and that there is a fudge on the issue before us. In her heart, she knows—I am sure that she has been told—that Direct Action Against Drugs is a proxy organisation in west Belfast for the IRA. Everybody else thinks so and, if the right hon. Lady does not believe me, she should go and ask people on the streets of west Belfast, because they will tell her the same thing. I do not merely call the Secretary of State a right hon. Lady, for I believe that she is an honourable, well-meaning and well-intentioned person, but if she does not accept that I am speaking the truth, she is deluding herself.
There has been no decommissioning. How can we pretend that the IRA has given up violence when it has kept up its violence and kept its weapons? The Secretary of State has said that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. The IRA has said throughout that it will use the ballot box and the Armalite, but it cannot use

both in a democratic society; it must give up the Armalite and that is what the clause is all about. We should be saying, "Give up the Armalite and then your prisoners can be released—at the same time, if necessary."
The allegation made by the hon. Gentleman from the DUP is so serious that it strikes at the heart of this institution. If it is true, I am ashamed of the Government of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To which allegation is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Robathan: You may not have been in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there has been an allegation that Hansard has been tampered with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was here and Madam Speaker stated that she would look into the matter. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked if Madam Speaker would look into it, it is being looked into and Madam Speaker will report back to the House. Let us leave it there. It has nothing to do with the amendment that we are debating—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was in the Chamber when I spoke to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).

Mr. Robathan: Is it your ruling that we may not refer to points of order on that issue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is my ruling that the matter is being looked into by Madam Speaker. Let us leave it at that. The hon. Gentleman should not mention an allegation that has been put before Madam Speaker and that she has promised to look into.

Mr. Robathan: So is it your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one may not refer to something that is being looked into by Madam Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My ruling is that the hon. Gentleman should be quiet on that matter and get on with discussing the amendment. I cannot make it any simpler than that.

Mr. Robathan: The Prime Minister has stated—

Mr. Winnick: Grow up.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman, who shouts from a sedentary position, should examine his conscience carefully on the issue. If the allegation is true, he should hang his head in shame.
The Prime Minister stated, in the past and again yesterday, that decommissioning is a vital part of the process and we all know that that is true. Everybody in the House believes that peace should come to Northern Ireland, but the Bill is currently a fudge—a con is being played. Yes, decommissioning is a vital part of the process, but it is not in the Bill. I hope that decommissioning will take place and that weapons will be handed in. If that does not happen, there will be no peace in Northern Ireland and we shall have to revisit the issue time and again. Peace cannot be built on a fudge or a con, but, without decommissioning appearing on the face of the Bill, I fear that that is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall deal first with the legal propositions advanced by the right hon. and learned


Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which appear to be excessively dependent on legal interpretations of the agreement. Most hon. Members would accept that the agreement is not only a document whose meaning can be interpreted legally, but a highly political document. It is the political aspects of the document on the issue of decommissioning that form the subject matter of amendment No. 2.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and it is my submission that whatever the agreement means—it is open to interpretation—cannot be altered, varied or amended by any single party, because it is a multi-party agreement. Of course, that does not deal with what the agreement actually means. I take issue with claim of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that the people of Northern Ireland, who are the subject of this agreement, knew what it was all about. Frankly, very few people in Northern Ireland know exactly what it is all about and I suggest that it was never intended that they should know. Perhaps there was a golden age of the English language, when its purpose was to convey nuances and meanings in the clearest possible terms, but the agreement is an example of how language can be used to obscure and obfuscate meaning.
The question as regards amendment No. 2 is whether there is any linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. The Bill provides for the release of prisoners on certain terms. The object of the amendment is to introduce a new term or condition—that they may be released only if the organisation that they represent
has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms".
It is my belief and legal interpretation—I am at one with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Hull, North on this—that decommissioning cannot be made a precondition or linkage for the release of prisoners.
6.30 pm
However, the real issue is whether the people of Northern Ireland were persuaded by the pledges of the Prime Minister that that was exactly what the agreement meant. Indeed, it can be suggested that, in the last two days before 22 May when the referendum vote was held, enormous pressure was put on the electorate in Northern Ireland to accept and believe, first, that decommissioning would take place in its entirety within two years and, secondly, that it would have to commence before members of Sinn Fein could take their places in executive posts in government and terrorist prisoners could be released. That is what they believed and that is what substantially swung the vote.
What is the Government's present position? What are they going to do? Are they going to observe the strict terms of the agreement and refuse to alter it—to say that we cannot cherry-pick and must accept it as a whole and that decommissioning cannot be linked to the release of prisoners, which is one side of the coin—or, will they honour the Prime Minister's pledges, which effectively secured a large yes vote on the basis that he and his Government could deliver what they are now suggesting that they cannot? That is the real issue and it is a moral as well as a legal issue for the House.
A point of order has been raised, which Madam Speaker has accepted and will rule upon. She will rule upon the propriety of the conduct that gave rise to it. I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that does not prevent hon. Members from referring to the factual circumstance. The propriety or otherwise is a matter for Madam Speaker and she has properly reserved that decision to herself. It is not for us to comment or even speculate on what she may or may not do, but it is open to hon. Members to speak factually of what is known and it is known that, on the face of the Hansard record for the appropriate date–6 May—the Leader of the Opposition asked certain questions and the Prime Minister gave certain answers. On the basis of what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) stated, it is open to the House to know that, having gone to the archives of the House, listened to the tape and seen the video, he made a factual statement that the Prime Minister then said that decommissioning—and substantial decommissioning—would be necessary prerequisites to either Sinn Fein members taking their place in executive posts in government or prisoners being released.
The propriety of the conflict is indeed a matter entirely for Madam Speaker. However, those are the facts and they illustrate vividly and dramatically the essential issue—is the agreement a multi-party agreement that cannot be altered? I believed that to be the case and that is the basis on which I put question after question to the Prime Minister at the time. I believe that that is the true basis of this agreement.
The Prime Minister entered into a truly Faustian bargain when, in the two days before the referendum vote in desperate circumstances, he gave pledges that he is now called upon, like Dr. Faust with Mephistopheles, to deliver upon. The Government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and concerned Ministers must now address themselves to that.

Marjorie Mowlam: At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about information and the question of security in an answer that I gave earlier. I listened to what he said, but I do not change my view. Security is very important in Northern Ireland and, if there is any question of the first job that I have, which is to give people security, I am afraid that I shall stick to that position. He also asked for clarity and I support what he said. There is not a fudge between democracy and terror. The Prime Minister's words and what we have put on the face of the Bill make it very clear.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) also raised that point. If we are talking of fudges, he said that we ought to be clearer in our position on Sinn Fein-IRA and then talked about the previous Government. In 1995, that Government continued to release prisoners when the ceasefire stopped. Did they change their position when they were not even on ceasefire? No, so if we are talking about consistency, let us consider it across the board.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked whether all the prisoners would be out in two years without any decommissioning. As has been said a number of times in the House this week, not all the prisoners will be let out, only those associated with an organisation on ceasefire. A number of stringent safeguards are attached. In addition, I have powers to vary the two-year cut-off


depending on the circumstances. As we have said on numerous occasions, we shall make a judgment. I cannot prejudge it, but it will be made.
Therefore, I must make it clear that we cannot accept amendment No. 1, which is not consistent with the terms of the agreement. I am sorry, I forgot to mention the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Even though I do not agree with the thrust of his remarks, he made some important statements.
We cannot accept amendment No. 1 and, in commending amendment No. 2 to the House, I would say to the official Opposition that I well understand the anxieties that they have expressed in Committee and why, as a result—despite wishing the Good Friday agreement well—some Conservative Members may find it impossible to support the legislation. However, we should never forget that the real authors of the agreement are not us—not the Government—but the parties and people of Northern Ireland. They negotiated the Good Friday agreement, for which the arrangements were a key element, and they endorsed it in a referendum. In so doing, they knew the difficulties ahead. It is not for us to turn round to them and say, "You got it wrong—go back and think again."
Now that the parties and people of Northern Ireland have decided to grasp their future and to mould it themselves, difficult as that task is, they are looking to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support them where we can, not to exploit for political advantage their chance for a peaceful future.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
'(e) has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.— [Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 260.

Division No. 309]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Brady, Graham
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford
Swayne, Desmond


Hunter, Andrew



McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robathan, Andrew
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mr. William Thompson.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beard, Nigel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Alexander, Douglas
Begg, Miss Anne


Allan, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Allen, Graham
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F


Banks, Tony
Best, Harold


Barron, Kevin
Betts, Clive





Blackman, Liz
Gorrie, Donald


Blears, Ms Hazel
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Borrow, David
Grogan, John


Brake, Tom
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Hancock, Mike


(Dunfermline E)
Hanson, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harris, Dr Evan


Burden, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Burgon, Colin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Burnett, John
Healey, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Heppell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hesford, Stephen


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hopkins, Kelvin


Caplin, Ivor
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Casale, Roger
Hoyle, Lindsay


Caton, Martin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Chaytor, David
Hurst, Alan


Chidgey, David
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Jenkins, Brian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Coleman, Iain
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbett, Robin
 Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cotter, Brian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cousins, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Cox, Tom
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cranston, Ross
Khabra, Piara S


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Cummings, John
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dalyell, Tam
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Darvill, Keith
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Laxton, Bob


Davidson, Ian
Leslie, Christopher


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Levitt, Tom


Denham, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dismore, Andrew
Linton, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H
Livingstone, Ken


Doran, Frank
Lock, David


Dowd, Jim
Love, Andrew


Drew, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCabe, Steve


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Edwards, Huw
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonnell, John


Fisher, Mark
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Follett, Barbara
McNulty, Tony


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McWalter, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
McWilliam, John


Galloway, George
Mallaber, Judy


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Gardiner, Barry
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gibson, Dr Ian
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Goggins, Paul
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Merron, Gillian






Michael, Alun
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Milburn, Alan
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mitchell, Austin
Skinner, Dennis


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Moonie, Dr Lewis
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moran, Ms Margaret
 Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mudie, George
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Spellar, John


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
 Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Norris, Dan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
 Stuart, Ms Gisela


Olner, Bill
Stunell, Andrew


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Organ, Mrs Diana
(Dewsbury)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Perham, Ms Linda
Timms, Stephen


Pickthall, Colin
Tipping, Paddy


Pike, Peter L
Todd, Mark


Plaskitt, James
Touhig, Don


Pollard, Kerry
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Rendel, David
White, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooker, Jeff
Willis, Phil


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Roy, Frank
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Woolas, Phil


Salter, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sanders, Adrian



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Sawford, Phil
Mr. Greg Pope and


Sedgemore, Brian
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 3

SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 38, at end insert—
'or certificate under paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 to that Act (transitional provisions);
( ) any certificate issued by the Lord Justice General in relation to the prisoner under section 16(2) of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 or paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (transitional provisions);
( ) any order made in relation to the prisoner under section 2 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (duty to release designated life prisoners);'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 4.

Mr. Ingram: The amendments are technical, and I hope that I will not need to expound on them at any great length, but I am prepared to do so if hon. Members want to have a debate.
Amendment No. 3 amends paragraph 6. The present effect of the paragraph is that the commissioners must have regard to different information from that set out in clause 7 when they are considering the release of life prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland from Great Britain. In such circumstances, the commissioners must have regard to any direction of the Parole Board for the release of a discretionary life prisoner, any other information that the Secretary of State submits, such as information about the tariff of a mandatory life prisoner—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The general buzz of conversation is making it difficult to hear the Minister. I would be grateful if hon. Members would listen to him. [Interruption.]

Mr. Ingram: I thought that I heard someone saying, "Thank goodness for that," because it was better not to be able to hear me. I was about to say that the commissioners must have regard to that extra information as well as to their previous decisions.
Amendment No. 3 simply provides the equivalent Scottish provisions to those already referred to in paragraph 6 for England and Wales. That means that the commissioners must have regard to the same sort of information in respect of life prisoners transferred from Scotland to Northern Ireland as for those transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland. That is logical and fair and I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment No. 4 amends clause 12(4), which is an interpretation provision providing that references in the Bill to a sentence of imprisonment for life include references to a sentence of detention at the Secretary of State's pleasure. Amendment No. 4 simply adds the equivalent provision for Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 13, line 47, at end insert
'or detention for life or without limit of time under section 205(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Marjorie Mowlam: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The debate in Committee and on Report clearly showed the genuine concerns of many right hon. and hon. Members about the operation of the scheme. Before the Bill was published, I had meetings with representatives of several parties to discuss issues raised by the Bill. Those discussions were helpful to me and, I hope, to those whom I met.
Many right hon. and hon. Members tabled amendments that were considered in Committee and on Report. In each case, our careful consideration was on the basis that any amendments must be fully consistent with the Good Friday agreement, which was endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. We cannot and should not rewrite that agreement, but when points have been made that are helpful and could improve the terms of the Bill, we have certainly taken them on board.


Tonight, we considered on Report a Government amendment that was suggested by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who expressed the hope that the legal terms of the Bill might be able to reflect more of the language that the Prime Minister used in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May. I accepted what the right hon. Gentleman said and tabled the amendment. I also tabled a Government amendment in response to arguments that he made on Second Reading about the operation of clause 8. I accepted those arguments and I believe that the Bill has been improved as a consequence of his contribution.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said:
We must take the Stormont agreement as a whole, and should not pick and choose."—[Official Report, 16 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1096–97.]
That is right. If we cherry-picked and wrote extra provisions into the Bill that were not in the agreement, we would be departing from that agreement and would lose all moral authority to hold others fully to the commitments that they have made.
I also accepted amendments tabled by members of other parties. For example, Lord Alderdice asked for the Bill to allow victims to ask for information about releases, and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke on that issue on Second Reading. We added a new clause in Committee to address their concerns.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke in favour of an amendment to require that a lawyer appointed to the sentence review body should have a United Kingdom qualification, and of another to require the procedure for varying the two-year cut-off period to be subject to affirmative resolution. Again, we accepted those amendments on the basis that they improved the Bill and were consistent with the agreement.
Under the Bill, I am given powers to say which organisations have not established, or are not maintaining, complete and unequivocal ceasefires. With the agreement of the House, I can move forward or back the two-year cut-off date. I also have powers to suspend the scheme entirely. Hon. Members have asked about the circumstances in which I might use those powers. As I said, I cannot prejudge such decisions now, but I shall certainly face them squarely in the future.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about the position of prisoners who allege that they have been the subject of miscarriages of justice. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), said, the matter is not covered by the Bill; he has written a letter today covering the other matters that were raised, and a copy has been placed in the Library.
In Committee, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked whether the Bill gave adequate protection to sensitive material. Given the sensitivity of security information and the requirement to protect individuals, that is an important matter, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook to reflect on it. Having considered the issue, I can assure the House that there is no doubt that the requirement in clause 11 for the commissioners to give reasons is qualified by paragraph 5(1)(e) of schedule 2 and that a rule made under the schedule will give protection to sensitive information such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Much of our debate has been dominated by assertions that the Bill failed to reflect commitments given by the Government in advance of the referendum on 22 May. As I have said repeatedly, there is not a single shred of truth in that accusation.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, we have done
precisely what we said we would do."—[Official Report, 17 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 363.]
That being so, I want to express my disappointment that the bipartisan approach that has served the process so well for many years may be in doubt tonight. I hope that it will not be ended. As an Opposition, we were always determined to ensure that the search for peace in Northern Ireland was not made even more difficult by arguments and by confusing signals being sent across the Floor of the House. I know how much the previous Government valued the stance that we took, as I did theirs. I am sorry if that approach is on the way out, as we have been constructive and open in our approach to the Bill, particularly on proposals that enhance and improve the Bill within the terms of the Good Friday agreement.
The Bill contains serious provisions and I shall take my responsibilities very seriously in putting them into practice. On 22 May the people of Northern Ireland decided to grasp their future and to shape it. They look now to both sides of the House to see what we can do to support them. I am sure that they will welcome our determination to implement the agreement—their agreement—in full and in good faith.

7 pm

Mr. Andrew MacKay: From my time as the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the 1980s through to my present responsibilities as shadow Secretary of State and official Opposition spokesman, I have shared the view of the Secretary of State that there should, wherever possible, be a bipartisan approach to matters concerning Northern Ireland. That is in the interests both of the Province, and of a lasting settlement.
I hope that the House will agree, however, that no Opposition can give a blank cheque to a Government. Certainly, when we were in government, the Opposition did not give us a blank cheque. The House will recall the number of occasions on which the Opposition voted against or failed to support the prevention of terrorism Act. In my view, that was regrettable, and it damaged the peace process at that time.
I do not lightly advise my colleagues to vote against Third Reading. In so doing, therefore, I want to stress to the Secretary of State in particular, and the House in general, that we wish wherever possible to support the Government, and to continue the bipartisan policy. She has that assurance from me across the Floor of the House. Our voting against what we believe to be a fatally flawed Bill tonight will in no way stop our supporting the Government in their search for a lasting settlement.
I want to explain why we believe the Bill to be fundamentally flawed. We have one objection to it, and one objection only. However, it is a fundamental objection that goes to the root of the legislation. As drafted, and without the amendment that I unsuccessfully moved on Monday, the Secretary of State and her successors have only to "take into account" whether


paramilitary organisations are decommissioning. In the Bill's words, with which I do not quarrel, the Secretary of State should "take into account" whether they are "co-operating" with the decommissioning commission. That means that prisoners could be released without that co-operation. To put it at its worst—I hope, pray and believe that this would not happen under the present Secretary of State, but it could happen under the Bill—every terrorist prisoner could be released in Northern Ireland without one single gun being decommissioned, and not one ounce of Semtex being handed in.
Our amendment was modest, constructive and moderate. It did not say, as some of our critics would have liked, that there should be decommissioning before any prisoner is released. Instead, we said simply that paramilitary organisations must satisfy the Secretary of State that they are co-operating with the commission before any prisoner is released. That is reasonable and fair, but it was rejected. The only ground that the Secretary of State gave for rejecting that moderate amendment was—she said—that it goes beyond the agreement. If that were so, I, as a supporter of the agreement, would not have moved it. My interpretation of the part of the agreement that concerns the release of prisoners is that there was a direct linkage between early release and total renunciation of violence. I have always maintained that any reasonable person would believe that total renunciation of violence must include decommissioning.
I do not want the House to take my word on that point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition posed exactly the same question on Wednesday 6 May to the Prime Minister. I shall not dwell on the point of order made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), because Madam Speaker is quite rightly looking into that, and we shall have an urgent report on how there appears to have been a strange change in Hansard.

Mr. Ingram: Only alleged.

Mr. MacKay: The Minister of State speaks from a sedentary position. Let me say to him that I have listened to the recording, because I did not believe that that could possibly have happened. I have listened to and seen the video, and I can tell him that it did happen.
Let me quote from another answer given that day by the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives.
The Prime Minister replied:
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
I agreed with the Prime Minister then, and I agree with him now. The Prime Minister and I believe that that was the correct interpretation of the agreement.
More importantly, what the Prime Minister said on the Floor of the House on 6 May was widely and rightly reported in the Province in every newspaper. It was

because of the Prime Minister's welcome assurance that the people of Northern Ireland voted yes in the referendum. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were campaigning for a yes vote during the crucial last days of the referendum, and we heard large numbers of ordinary, decent people in both communities say, "Now we have the assurances on decommissioning and prisoner release, we are prepared, at this late stage, to support the referendum and vote yes."
This has become a matter of trust. Politicians should do as they say. In particular, the Prime Minister, when at the Dispatch Box, knowing full well that his words would be very carefully listened to by the people of Northern Ireland, who were about to vote in the referendum, should have given assurances that would be translated into legislation. That did not happen, and the Bill is fundamentally flawed.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He and I have talked formally and informally about these matters on many occasions, and we share an on-the-record support for the agreement and a concern that it is not robust enough on prisoner release and decommissioning. Can he help me with a point about his argument? Is he inviting the Opposition to vote against Third Reading because the Bill accurately reflects the agreement, and he thinks that the agreement is inadequate? Or is he asking us to vote against it because the Bill does not accurately reflect the agreement, and he thinks that it should? In either case, we are being asked to vote against a Bill that puts into law an important part of the agreement—neither he nor I are happy with that part of it—but he says that by voting against it, we will not be voting against a bipartisan approach. Will my hon. Friend clarify the position?

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose experience and record in serving his country in Northern Ireland as a Minister and as parliamentary private secretary, like me, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—in fact, I succeeded him in the 1980s in that role—is second to none in the House. I am very happy to answer his question and to put a little more flesh on the bones of my brief speech on Third Reading. My interpretation of the agreement that linked explicitly the earlier release of prisoners, which we are talking about in this legislation, to the complete renunciation of violence was that that included decommissioning. As I have said, that is not just my view; it was the view of the Prime Minister in answer to a series of questions on the Floor of the House on 6 May.
Therefore, I am not asking the House tonight in any shape or form to break the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) and I strongly support. Nor am I suggesting that, if my amendment were passed, it would be outside the agreement; I believe that it would not be. That is vital.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire asked a further question about the bipartisan approach. He and I are firm supporters of, wherever possible, maintaining a bipartisan approach on these matters. As I said at the outset of my remarks, wherever possible, we will do so, but we do have a duty to the House as an Opposition and we do have a duty to the people of Northern Ireland. If we believe that the Bill


is fundamentally flawed and that there is a breach of trust—I do not like saying this, but I happen to believe that it is true, if we read Hansard, that there has been a breach of trust by the Prime Minister—we are obliged to vote against the Bill. We hope that the other place amends it and that, when it is amended, the Government will have had time to reflect and be able to see that what we are trying to do is constructive and realistic within the agreement and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bill.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with sadness to the speech of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who speaks for the Opposition, because I believe two things. First, he is seeking radically to alter, by his attitude and by the amendment that he has tabled in the House, the terms of the agreement that was made on Good Friday. In doing that, it is possible that he is opening a Pandora's box. If he were to be successful, every party to that agreement would be able to say, "It is not robust enough here, it is not strong enough there. We want this concession. We did not really mean this. We really meant that. The Prime Minister said this. The Leader of the Opposition has said that." We are having textual criticism upon textual criticism in attempts to improve the whole situation.
That is a very dangerous thing to do because there are parties that are not represented in the House which are parties to that agreement, which signed it in good faith and which felt that they were able to turn to their supporters and say, "On the basis of this, we can give up involving ourselves in violence. On the basis of this agreement, of what we have been shown and of what we were shown in the briefing paper on this issue at the time, we can give up violence." To seek to alter it now would be a very dangerous thing.
Secondly, I feel sad about the speech of the hon. Member for Bracknell because I remember other occasions when Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland were engaged in very delicate negotiations and things happened that the Opposition could, if they had wished, have had a great deal of fun with; they could have caused much embarrassment to the Government of the day. I can think of at least one occasion involving the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who was attacked by the Unionist parties over a particular incident. I got up and said that, as far as we were concerned, this was in no way a resigning matter because the object of those parties' criticism was not the particular thing that had happened, but a desire to delay or to prevent peace talks from going on.
I remember other occasions when the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now Lord Mayhew, suffered much criticism in this House, particularly when it was revealed that, despite the Prime Minister of the day saying that talks with the IRA would have turned his stomach, he and the then Secretary of State were, in fact, talking with the IRA. On that occasion, we refused again because we felt that the peace process was even more important than that.
The hon. Member for Bracknell will say that we voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. That is true; we did. We voted against it because we did not think that it

was helping the peace process, but there is a world of difference between seeking to wreck the Government when they are involved in peace talks and dealing with matters on which this party had had a particular fixed position for well over a decade.
I want to finish on just two points. It is a question of trust. The question is now: can we trust the Leader of the Opposition on this matter? I do not think so, but I want to talk briefly about a situation in which a Conservative Government were engaged because it is a precedent. It concerns Rhodesia.
Following the Rhodesian peace talks, the Zimbabwe Act 1979 contained this statement:
No criminal proceedings … shall be instituted … in respect of
any act done on or after 11th November 1965 in the conduct or on the orders of any organisation having the purpose of resisting, frustrating or overthrowing the administration purporting to be the Government of Rhodesia or
any act done … for the purpose of resisting or combating any such organisation".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. He is now straying rather too wide of the Third Reading.

Mr. McNamara: The point that I am seeking to make—I listen carefully to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that this Bill places restrictions on the release of prisoners and their acts. When the Opposition were in government, they gave a complete amnesty to all who were concerned in some of the worst atrocities that had been committed in that area. That amnesty also applied to acts helping the rebel regime in this country, and many people from that regime were seeking to break the provisions that had been made by the United Nations and the Government at that time.
Therefore, I make the point that, at that time, there was no criticism from the then Opposition, but every applause and support of the Government of the day in making the peace process. The conduct of the Government when they were in opposition, and the action of the Opposition over Zimbabwe and elsewhere should be emulated because peace is far too important to be put at risk by cherry-picking in this way. If we consider the opinions of the people of Northern Ireland, the thing that they put top of their list is not decommissioning. It is not release of prisoners. It is peace.

Mr. Phil Willis: Having come to this portfolio fairly recently, it has been most interesting over the three days to hear about the experience in terms of the Bill of so many right hon. and hon. Members.
It is an extremely important Bill, in more ways than one, because this is the first real challenge to the spirit of the Belfast agreement. People in Northern Ireland expected that the agreement would be put into operation by the Government and would be supported, largely with debate, by right hon. and hon. Members.
I must put on record the position of the Liberal Democrat party and speak for our Alliance party partners in Northern Ireland. We whole-heartedly support the Belfast agreement, not simply because our friends were involved in the process but because the people who spent


two years arguing to get it supported it, and 71 per cent. of the people supported it in a referendum. We support it on the basis that there is no cherry-picking and that it is a complete document. Hon. Members have made that point time and again. The Secretary of State went to great pains to make it. We support it on that basis, not on that of the Prime Minister's comments at Balmoral or anywhere else. The Prime Minister is right to comment on any legislation or agreement. The people of Northern Ireland expect that. It would have been impossible for him to go to Northern Ireland during the peace process or referendum and keep his mouth closed. To have expected that would have been ludicrous.
The position of some hon. Members and political parties is interesting. Democratic Unionist party Members and some official Unionist Members were honest and honourable throughout the process. They read the documents and the agreement and they opposed it. During the referendum, they went on to the streets, knocked on people's doors and said, "This is our interpretation of the document. Do not support it." They had several reasons for that. I said in an earlier debate that I was in Northern Ireland soon after the referendum and met republicans from the Province and the Republic of Ireland who had voted no. They had done so honourably because they did not believe that the agreement could be put into operation. However, I do not believe that the official Opposition have done themselves justice with the position that they have taken.
The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) campaigned in Northern Ireland during the referendum. I take my hat off to them. They campaigned on the basis of the Belfast agreement. That was what they were telling people to support. That was an honourable position. We must accept that when they campaigned for it, that was what they believed. Understanding the agreement, they realised that that was what would be put into legislation.
We believe that the Belfast agreement is reflected in the Bill. Even those hon. Members who have so vigorously opposed the Bill accept that the Belfast agreement is interpreted accurately in it. If the Conservatives were prepared to campaign for a yes vote—I believe that this is the point that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was making—on the basis of the Belfast agreement, why are they threatening bipartisan agreement by telling their Members to vote against it? We must conclude that they have decided, for reasons best known to themselves, to take a hard line on the release of prisoners, linking it inextricably to decommissioning. They must know that demanding full or partial decommissioning before the release of prisoners would stop the peace process in its tracks.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was right. The word "partial" cannot be interpreted in law because it is impossible to define. Without a known starting point, it is impossible to ascertain who has given up what and whether it is substantial. I earnestly hope, in view of the conciliatory comments made by the hon. Member for Bracknell in his Third Reading speech, that the Opposition will think again. I hope that many Conservative Members will use their conscience on the matter and not follow the leadership.
The key issue for us is not decommissioning. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) rightly noted that the statement on prisoners says:
Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements.
Without a complete ceasefire being maintained, we do not have a peace. Irrespective of decommissioning and the idea that weapons could all be taken out, if peace breaks down and people return to armed struggle, then as the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has often said, there could be rearmament within weeks or months, with more sophisticated weaponry than before. It is peace that will make the gun, the bullet and the Semtex redundant. It is the good will of those who signed the agreement and who voted in the referendum that will make them disappear from Northern Ireland. Unless we believe that, this House is merely part of a charade or game and we are deceiving ourselves and the people of Northern Ireland. Some people do not believe it.

Mr. Robathan: Would the hon. Gentleman say that he is not concerned about the possession of illegal weapons, whether on the mainland or in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Willis: With respect, that is one of the most stupid comments that I have heard.

Mr. Robathan: Then answer it.

Mr. Willis: I shall answer straightforwardly. Of course I am concerned.

Mr. Robathan: He said that he was not.

Mr. Willis: No. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to speak today. He is in disagreement with virtually all his colleagues. He should listen to what I am saying. The reason why the bipartisan agreement must not break down is that it is the road to peace that is important. The fact that we have got so many people to rally round the Belfast agreement is important. If the Bill reflects the Belfast agreement, why throw it away?
We are grateful to the Government for including clause 14. There are those who feel that notifying victims is not a good idea. We do not share that belief. There are clearly problems, and we trust that the Government will use the clause sensitively.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said:
Contrary to what he said, the IRA has not been defeated in any manner—many of us in Northern Ireland suspect that that is because no real effort has ever been made to defeat it."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 57.]
I took great exception to that comment, as I am sure do other hon. Members. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is in his place. I hope that he will reflect on that in his speech. According to the research paper that we were given for the Bill, 955 members of the RUC or the armed forces have been killed in the struggle and more than 14,600 have been injured. To say that successive Governments have not been determined to defeat terrorism is a slur on their names. I trust that he will reflect and withdraw that remark.

Mr. Winnick: I am glad that the Government have acted swiftly to implement part of the Good Friday agreement. The Bill was absolutely necessary as a precondition of implementation.
I have no wish to minimise the terrible terrorist crimes committed by those held in prison in Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain. We in the west midlands have also suffered from terrorism. I need not remind the House that, on 21 November 1974, 25 people, around half of them under the age of 25, were butchered there by the IRA. We understand terrorism as well as anyone else—although I concede that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt of the terrible atrocities over the years.
I take the view that the real division, here and in Northern Ireland, is between those who are for the agreement and those who are determined to wreck it. Some hon. Members were against the agreement and against the negotiations—they campaigned in that fashion before the referendum. They have no wish to see the agreement succeed; they think it a bad agreement and they want it destroyed. But I believe that the overwhelming majority in the House, including the official Opposition, take a different view.

Mr. MacKay: indicated assent.

Mr. Winnick: Like us, the Opposition believe that this is the best chance for Northern Ireland for a very long time—I would say, since partition in 1920. The danger in voting against the Bill is that it will send all the wrong signals to the people of Northern Ireland and give encouragement to those who want to wreck the agreement.
The Belfast Telegraph agrees that this is the best chance for peace, even though it finds flaws in the agreement. It warns, too, of the dangers of sending the wrong signals, concluding:
Whatever flaws the agreement has, it represents Northern Ireland's best chance of securing a lasting peace.
It goes without saying that the official Opposition are not about to change their minds tonight. Despite that, I continue to hope that the bipartisan approach will not be destroyed. Time and again during our 18 years of opposition, people outside asked us why we always seemed to agree with the Conservative Government on Northern Ireland. We replied that we believed that that Government's policies on Northern Ireland were right: to combat terrorism, just as the previous Labour Government had done, and just as we will continue to do if terrorism returns. We saw the problem as a conflict between democracy and terrorism. There was no doubt where Labour stood—we were on the side of democracy. Even though we may have been misunderstood at times, I have no regrets about our support for the Conservative policies in combating terrorism during those years.
Despite the Conservatives' voting intentions tonight, I hope that, in the days and months ahead, we will remain a largely united House of Commons on these issues. The future will be difficult; however much we favour the agreement, its implementation will be fraught with difficulty. If it is to be successful, we need a continuing bipartisan policy. There are no guarantees that the agreement will work, but we must all do our utmost to bring to Northern Ireland the lasting peace which its people deserve.

Mr. Donaldson: Like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), my party believes the Bill to be fundamentally flawed. I say that not because I voted against the agreement, as a resident of Northern Ireland, but because the Bill is fundamentally flawed in terms of the agreement that was reached.
I shall confine myself in this speech to decommissioning, which, once again, the Government have fudged. The requirements that the Bill places on the Secretary of State are riddled with ambiguity. Throughout these debates, my party has sought to find out what the Government mean when they say that they will try to determine whether these organisations are "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning body. The Secretary of State and the Minister have failed lamentably to tell the House what that means.
I remind the Government that they are accountable to the House of Commons. The Secretary of State has been charged, under the Bill, with responsibility for ensuring that the terrorist organisations deliver peace. She is thus accountable to the House, and, in the weeks, months and years ahead, we will certainly hold her to account. If she fails in her responsibility to deliver the aims of the Bill, weak as they are, we will ensure that that is brought to the attention of the House. And if, as I suspect will happen, prisoners are released and no guns are handed over, we will bring that to the attention of the House time and again—until the Government live up to their responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that the guns are actually decommissioned.

Mr. Tony McWalter: What does the hon. Gentleman have in mind—two tonnes of Semtex by Tuesday? That at least would be a lot more specific. The Secretary of State is trying to assess the bona fides of these organisations, not just to examine the material manifestations. She is concerned with whether an organisation ever intends to return to violence, and that can be established only in much more subtle ways.

Mr. Donaldson: I participated in the talks process from beginning to end—

Mr. McNamara: And walked out.

Mr. Donaldson: I did not walk out. The talks had concluded when I left—the hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. 1 did not support the agreement, and I am entitled not to, as were the many in Northern Ireland who shared that view. This is, after all, a democratic society.
When the IRA's representatives were invited to the talks on the basis of a so-called unequivocal ceasefire, it was breached on numerous occasions—even murders took place. It was only when my party brought that to the attention of the Government, and after much delay, that the Government finally decided that Sinn Fein should be put in the sin bin—for a mere two weeks for two murders.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the first party to be put out of the talks, the UDP, was put out only after the UFF, which it was fronting, had committed three murders, and after the Chief Constable had publicly stated that that organisation was responsible for the murders?

Mr. Donaldson: That is indeed an accurate assessment.
I hope that Members understand why we are extremely dubious about the Government's ability to deliver in terms of holding terrorists to account. Throughout the talks process, the Government's record of holding terrorists to account was lamentable. I repeat that if there is no decommissioning while prisoners continued to be released, we shall return to the House and ask the Secretary of State what, in her opinion, represents full co-operation with the decommissioning body, in the terms of the Bill. I hope that in future the Secretary of State will be able to answer that question because, to date, we have not received an answer.
I hope that hon. Members understand that, in the absence of a definition of what represents full co-operation with the decommissioning body, we have to remain sceptical about the Government's intentions in holding the terrorist organisations to account. We have been told that we cannot cherry-pick the agreement. Well, decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. The IRA has said publicly that it will not decommission its weapons, yet, by the end of the summer, IRA prisoners will have been released as a result of the Bill, and no weapons will have been handed over. There is an inequity there, and it is the terrorists who will cherry-pick the agreement.
It is the terrorists who will enjoy the benefits, have their prisoners released and get seats in the Government of Northern Ireland. Yet they will renege on their part of the agreement. Will the Government hold them to account? Can the House be sure that the Government will insist that the terrorist organisations deliver on their part of the agreement? Nothing that I have heard from the Government in the past few days convinces me that they will do so. I regret that we have not been able to secure the clear linkages that are necessary.
We hear much talk about peace. I live in Northern Ireland and represent a constituency that, like many in Northern Ireland, has experienced terrorist violence. Indeed, only recently, during the referendum campaign, a large bomb was planted in Lisburn in my constituency. I am grateful to the security forces for defusing it before there was loss of life and damage to property.
The threat of violence remains. The threat of terrorism remains. We need to be convinced that we shall have real peace. Hon. Members argue that what is necessary to obtain real peace is the bona fides of the terrorist organisations. The people of Northern Ireland do not accept the bona fides of terrorists, because terrorists are those who sneak up in the dark and shoot people in the back. How can one take the word of such people?
The House and the Government have a responsibility to the people who live in Northern Ireland, whom they govern and for whom they legislate, to ensure that terrorism is held to account and that when people obtain the benefits of the democratic process, they give up violence for good. That must include the decommissioning of their weapons. My party will watch with interest how the Government, particularly the Secretary of State, fulfil their obligations under the Bill. We shall look to them to hold the terrorists to account, and if they do not, we will hold the Government to account in the House of Commons.

Mr. Clive Soley: The first point that I want to make to Tory Members, although it is probably too late, is that they should think again. They are doing themselves no good by giving a slap in the face to the Secretary of State and her team, who have done so much not only to build and deliver an agreement in Northern Ireland, but to build on the work started by the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). A number of Back-Bench Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), must know that the Tory party is deeply damaging itself tonight.
The Unionists, in arguing against the Bill tonight and tabling amendment No. 1, which was voted down, have at least consistency on their side. I wonder why Conservative Members did not vote with them, given that the amendment asked for the decommissioning of weapons. They are not even being consistent. The Unionist Members who have spoken tonight spoke, campaigned and voted against the agreement. The tide of history will leave them behind, and people will find it difficult to understand why they could not compromise, but, by God, at least they will not go down as being grossly inconsistent and giving a slap in the face to people who have worked so hard to deliver the agreement that, in no small part, was started by the previous Conservative Secretary of State and Prime Minister.

Mr. MacKay: Let me explain clearly to the hon. Gentleman that we supported the Government on Second Reading on the principle of the Bill, which we assumed would be amended in the modest way that we wanted. It is totally consistent and right for us to have voted for Second Reading and now to vote against Third Reading because our amendment was not accepted. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to understand that, and I suggest that he does not try to play politics.

Mr. Soley: That is a pathetic playing with words on a matter that is far too important for such comments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Government were struggling to survive during their last few years in office. As I said on a number of occasions, the previous Prime Minister and Secretary of State made a brave effort to deal with the Northern Ireland problem. My colleagues will remember the leak of the framework document, caused by a Unionist to damage the Conservative Government. What a wonderful opportunity that was for the Labour party. We could have torn into that document, ripped it apart and caused the Tory party a great deal of damage. We did not.
What about the exposure of the secret talks? Hon. Members will remember the great promises by Conservative leaders at the time that they would not talk to the IRA. But they did so again and again. The Labour party could have made hay with that and done enormous damage to the Tory party, but it did not do so.
What about the release of prisoners—the very issue which we are discussing tonight? That was started by the previous Conservative Government and Prime Minister. The peace process came to an end, and the prisoners continued to be released—the very action that


Conservative Members tell us they will vote against tonight. The Conservative Government continued to release prisoners and we supported them because we put the people of Northern Ireland before our personal interest, even though, at that time, if there had been an election, we would probably have won it with an even bigger majority than we have now, if that is possible.
Hon. Members have been saying that the people of Northern Ireland have been conned. Every single household in Northern Ireland received a copy of the agreement. I have met people from Northern Ireland over many years. At times, they have been badly led—and badly misled—and significant minorities of both communities, Unionist and republican, have indulged in killing. One point that some hon. Members need to remember about language is that the killing has been almost equal between Unionist and republican paramilitaries. In the past five years, Unionists have been killing significantly more than republicans.

Mr. William Thompson: Unionists?

Mr. Soley: Yes, the Unionist paramilitary groups, as they call themselves.

Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Soley: Not at the moment. They call themselves Unionist paramilitary groups. [Interruption.] I am content to know that they have killed in the numbers that they describe and that we all know to be true—between 110 and 120 people have been killed by Unionist paramilitary groups in the past five years.

Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member deliberately to mislead the House? There are no Unionist paramilitary groups.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for their own speeches.

Mr. Soley: I am content with the words that I am using. About 80 people have been killed by the republican community. That is why we have to be very careful with our language. Every time we condemn terrorism, it is not only—as one or two Conservative Members would like—the IRA that we must condemn, but all killing. If one is killed by a terrorist, the blood one spills is human. We must condemn it all.
We must remember that when the Northern Irish people got the document through their door, they read and understood it and, more importantly, they knew that one of the most difficult issues would be prisoner release. However, they voted for it because they wanted to leap ahead out of the darkness of the past. They did that, and we should support them tonight. The Tories should make it clear that they will support the people of Northern Ireland and stop playing politics with the lives of other people.

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that tonight I cannot accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), and I want to explain why.
I do not oppose the Bill; on the contrary, I support it, because it is a fair reflection of the agreement that was made between many parties, and which was supported in a referendum. I do not agree with the argument that the agreement provides for linkage as between the process of decommissioning and the release of prisoners.

Mr. Donaldson: The Bill does.

Mr. Hogg: The Bill does not provide for an explicit linkage because there is not an explicit linkage. There never was a linkage in the agreement. That may be a pity. It is extremely unpalatable that prisoners who have committed the most odious offences are to be released early. I find that as odious as any other hon. Member, but that is the price that the people of the Province agreed to pay in order to secure the prospect of murder and violence ceasing.
I am reluctant to support any unilateral variation of the agreement. If we do that, others will start to unpick the agreement—in particular, the terrorist organisations—and that will bring about a destruction of the agreement, and thus the end of the prospect of violence and murder ceasing.
I spoke briefly on linkage on Report. It is suggested that we should create an explicit linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. I do not believe that we should do that because, as I said on Report, we cannot verify—

Mr. MacKay: We have not said that.

Mr. Hogg: That is an interpretation that I placed on what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend is putting the wrong interpretation on what I said and clearly was not listening as attentively as usual. I shall explain exactly what my amendment proposes, because he was not here when I moved it on Monday. The paramilitary organisations will have to satisfy the Secretary of State that they are co-operating with the decommissioning commission. That phrase is taken directly from the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that that is not the same interpretation as he has given, and I am sure that he would want to put that right for the House.

Mr. Hogg: I am being asked today by my hon. Friend to do a different thing, which is to say that because the Bill does not provide explicitly for decommissioning, we should oppose the Bill. According to his construction of paragraph 2 on page 25, the concept of unequivocal ceasefire incorporates within it the process of decommissioning. That is the argument that he advanced to the House. I understand the intellectual process; I simply do not agree with it.
The commitment that is provided for in the agreement, in so far as there is any linkage to the release of prisoners, is the commitment to a ceasefire, not to decommissioning. Paragraph 3 on page 20 deals in greater detail with decommissioning. There, the obligation is on the parties to the agreement to use their best endeavours to bring


about a decommissioning within a two-year term—in other words, an extended period—which is quite different from what we are being asked to support.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have followed the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend carefully. In paragraph 2 on page 25 the word "unequivocal" is used. What does "unequivocal" mean in the context of the agreement? Does he agree that it is at least arguable that, in the context of the agreement, which must be taken as a whole, "unequivocal" must also cover any act that would tend to detract from the validity of the ceasefire, which must include participating in the decommissioning process?

Mr. Hogg: It is not that I do not understand the arguments, and my hon. Friend has advanced his in an extremely attractive manner. I see that if there was an active preparation of the weaponry, there would be no unequivocal ceasefire.
However, the fact that there is an accumulation of weaponry does not, of itself, show that a party is not committed to the ceasefire. The question is whether the weapons are buried under the ground, or are being burnished up for use. If the latter, there is not an unequivocal commitment to a ceasefire.
My argument is, first, that there is no linkage in the agreement, and I am against unilaterally varying the agreement. Secondly, the point that I was making when my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell intervened on me—I make no complaint—is that the concept of decommissioning is impossible to verify. There are intelligence reports about how much weaponry and explosives individual terrorist organisations may have, but it is not possible to determine at any stage whether there has been a substantial or a partial decommissioning. One cannot prove that.
Therefore, such a condition should not be made a condition precedent to the cessation of murder and violence. It may follow. We all hope that peace will be maintained, and decommissioning will follow. The error is to make of the concept of decommissioning a condition precedent, because that is not verifiable; nor will it be delivered.
I hope that, by our vote tonight, we will not do anything that puts at risk the prospect of the people of Northern Ireland seeing an end to murder and violence.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am delighted to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), because I agree with some of the conclusions that he reached.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to say in his earlier remarks that the people of Northern Ireland received copies of the agreement and that they read it, but he stretched matters a little too far when he suggested that having read it they immediately understood it and voted on that understanding. He may well reach that conclusion with his legal knowledge and his background in the House, but on the doorstep, over and over again, it became apparent that many people did not understand the legalese and Northern Ireland Office-speak in the document.
During the referendum campaign, the interpretation of the document became important. Many hon. Members recognised during the passage of the Bill that a significant feature of the outcome of the referendum was the undertakings given by the Prime Minister to the people of Northern Ireland. I read the document and came to precisely the same conclusions as the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members about what it meant. I informed the people of Northern Ireland what I believed the Government meant for their future.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) suggests that those of us who asked people to vote against the agreement will be left behind by history. I owe more to those who elect me than simply to follow the view that 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland may hold. When they elect me, they elect me to exercise my judgment on these matters. My judgment is that the agreement will not provide peace and stability for the people of Northern Ireland.
As a democrat, I have to accept that 71 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland concluded otherwise, but they concluded otherwise because of assurances given to them by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I know that not only because of our doorstep canvassers and the distinct change that took place in the week before the referendum.
The Northern Ireland Office knows that what I am saying is true because its polls and focus groups were telling it precisely the same thing. The very last polls that it received showed that up to 40 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland might vote against in the referendum because of the issues that we are discussing tonight. The Northern Ireland Office knew that things were moving in that direction. Something had to be done and the Prime Minister was wheeled into Northern Ireland to give assurances to the people of Northern Ireland so that they might vote in favour of the agreement.
What assurances were given? I do not want to tangle with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not go into the detail of the matter that I raised as a point of order earlier. Suffice it to say that press reports make it clear that the Prime Minister, in this House, made a clear and unambiguous statement that before any early release took place there would have to be substantial decommissioning. That is what he said. I have watched the video; that is clearly what the Prime Minister conveyed. Not only was it in the video and in the press report, but the editorial of one of Northern Ireland's leading newspapers used the Prime Minister's remarks to argue in favour of a positive response in the referendum. So, clearly, that was one of the factors that the people of Northern Ireland took into account when they voted.
It simply is not good enough, therefore, to say, "The people had the agreement; they understood it—or should have—so the vote is on the basis of the agreement." They voted on the agreement as it was interpreted to them. As I believe we all know from politics, there are few scripts that cannot be interpreted in different ways by different people, and who else would the people of Northern Ireland have listened to, to discover how the agreement would be implemented, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—the very person who would have to introduce the legislation to implement it?


The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush is right to say that the Bill accurately reflects my interpretation—and his—of the agreement, but it does not accurately reflect the interpretation of the agreement as given to the people of Northern Ireland by the Prime Minister. Therefore, those pledges have been broken. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to believe that they were conned—betrayed—by the Prime Minister. If they have been conned on that first issue arising from the agreement, they have a right to be in fear and trepidation of what will happen when the settlement Bill is introduced to deal with the other issues.
We therefore tabled a series of amendments to test the Government's credentials. We tabled an amendment that asked that terrorists should renounce violence before they were allowed out of gaol. The Government would not allow that amendment to be made. Just imagine it: terrorists are allowed to be released from gaol early, with years of their sentence to be completed, without ever renouncing violence.
We tabled an amendment to make into reality another pledge given by the Prime Minister—the one he signed his name to on a poster hoarding—that violence was over for good. We wanted to include the word "permanent" in relation to the ceasefire. Again, the Government did not accept that amendment.
We advanced the proposition that before anyone was released, actual decommissioning had to be in progress; the Government voted against that. We asked that if a prisoner was released but their organisation returned to violence, they should be recalled to prison; the Government voted against that as well.
What changes have the Government made? Some people—admittedly very few—in Northern Ireland are jumping for joy, spinning it to the people of Northern Ireland that something significant has happened. One newspaper had the audacity to report that there had been an arms coup as far as these people were concerned—that something great had happened; that the Government were making significant changes. The changes that they have made are anaemic, watery and meaningless. They do not go to the key issues of the Bill and will not protect the people of Northern Ireland in any way.
For all those reasons, if it is not already obvious, I shall vote against the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Grieve: The Bill's purpose is to implement one part of the agreement. I subscribe to and support the agreement. As I have said, I have supported it on the basis that it is the best agreement that could be achieved and it might lead to peace. I have also supported it on the basis of the Government's repeated utterances—which have not been challenged or departed from in any way—that the agreement is to be looked at as a whole.
The area of dispute between us is whether we are allowed, in passing the legislation necessary for the release of prisoners, to have regard to the totality of the agreement, starting with the ringing declaration about the abandonment of the use or threat of force, and carrying on through the various sections that include an explicit requirement to carry out a decommissioning process over a two-year period.
In the run-up to the debate, I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's words on a number of occasions about how the agreement might properly be interpreted. I say to

the Secretary of State that he left me in no doubt, until yesterday, when he answered a question I asked him at Prime Minister's Question Time, that the interpretation of the agreement that could be used in passing legislation for the release of prisoners included safeguards to link it to decommissioning.
In some ways, the issue is narrow. The Secretary of State retains a discretion—which she has, properly, placed in the Bill—that enables her to look at the totality of the agreement in deciding whether prisoners should be released and whether they qualify for release. It is an important safeguard and I have had every occasion, in the debate and previously, to respect her judgment and integrity on that issue. Nevertheless, ultimately this is a parliamentary matter. The question is, is this a matter for the discretion of the Government through their Ministers, or is this a matter where Parliament, looking at the agreement and interpreting it properly, incorporates the safeguard explicitly itself?
It is a narrow point and I very much hope that, over the next two years, it may turn out to be a point of merely academic interest. I, for myself, shall continue to support the Government along the peace process path, however difficult that may be, in the implementation of the agreement, but when it comes to the narrow issue of whether this Parliament and this House should introduce the safeguard itself, I am fortified, if by nothing else, by the words of the Prime Minister on several occasions and—this is where I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—by my interpretation of what is possible in the scope of the agreement. We are not in a position to refer the agreement to a judge to decide whether I am being creative or my right hon. and learned Friend is being too narrow, so I must follow my judgment and my conscience.
I am mindful of the fact that the issue has been a key issue in the Northern Ireland referendum campaign. Perhaps surprisingly, it became an important issue and raised its head, toward the end, as the real stumbling block to achieving consensus. It must therefore be especially important for the House to ensure that the safeguards that people expected, and which they were given every indication would be there, are in the Bill if at all possible.

Sir Robert Smith: I think I partly understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but whereas he said that it was quite important that Parliament should reflect the agreement, some of his colleagues seem to want Parliament to reflect the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement. Surely it is far more important that Parliament reflects the interpretation of the agreement that many hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to think is not in accord with what the Conservative party would like to do tonight.

Mr. Grieve: My interpretation of the agreement, in light of the fact that it was agreed by all parties that it must be considered as a whole, is that it is open to the House to put in the explicit link. The Government tell me that that is not so. All I can say is that, prior to the debate, the Prime Minister gave every indication that it was possible to do that. Whether the Prime Minister was mistaken and has changed his mind or whether some other interpretation may be placed on the issue, I know not.


I must follow my own judgment, and I believe that, if the House wished, it could introduce the link without breaking the agreement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the four days prior to the vote on the agreement, the Government—and the Prime Minister specifically—were acutely aware that the two issues that would change the voting pattern were decommissioning and the release of the prisoners and that those two issues were linked?

Mr. Grieve: Yes, I am aware of that. I listened to the speeches and I read the transcript of debates in the House. I cannot say any more than that: I believe that we may do it if we wish.
At the end of the day, the Opposition's goal may be achieved through the Secretary of State's exercising her discretion in the matter. However, it will be at her discretion and outwith our control. That is the narrow issue of disagreement. The Secretary of State may rely on my support in trying to carry through the peace process. However, as I think that it is my duty to introduce the safeguard in the House, I regret that I cannot support the Government tonight.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I approach the matter from the fundamental position of objecting to the creation of a new category of prisoner in the United Kingdom. That is one of the main reasons why I shall vote against the Bill tonight.
I would have liked the Bill to link decommissioning with the release of prisoners for two reasons. First, I believe that the electorate in Northern Ireland have been misled—I shall not go into that issue more deeply as it has been covered already. Secondly, if we are releasing prisoners, I believe that this is the best opportunity that we shall have of securing decommissioning. The Minister said last night that he hoped to see decommissioning in the future. What will we trade at that point to secure decommissioning—the Government will have surrendered their ace without receiving anything in return?
The Government may claim that they are getting something in return: ceasefires and peace, but they are of value only if they are genuine and permanent. I invite hon. Members to cast their minds back to an earlier IRA ceasefire when the Sinn Fein president reminded a crowd who had gathered that the IRA had not gone away. Would he have said that, and would his remarks have been relevant, if the IRA had decommissioned at that point? I suggest that if the IRA had decommissioned, the ground would have been swept from under him and he would not have been able to make statements such as that.
Why would any organisation want to retain arms? There can be only two reasons: either it wants to use the weapons again in the future or it intends to use them as a threat to move Northern Ireland further down the road to a united Ireland—which I believe this agreement takes us some way towards.

Mr. Graham Brady: I oppose the Bill and I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in so

doing. I had not intended to speak, but I believe that some of the remarks that have been made cannot go unchallenged. I refer to the suggestion, made by several Labour Members, that those who oppose the Bill are attempting to seek some party advantage. That is the most disgraceful allegation that they could make.
I am proud that the Conservative party intends to vote against the Bill tonight, but I would not vote for the Bill even if my party was. That is not a position that I adopt lightly. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) challenged Conservative Members to vote according to their consciences. That is what I shall do. In all conscience, I cannot vote for a Bill that will lead to the release of some of the most evil murderers—from either side of the divide—who have committed appalling crimes. I would find it difficult to vote for the Bill even if it linked their release to the decommissioning of weapons. I cannot, in conscience, vote for a Bill that will allow such people back on the streets of the United Kingdom when the weapons are still available for them to use.
Many hon. Members have implied that there is only one side to the issue. I ask them to consider carefully, as I believe this is the most important Bill to be debated in my short time in this place. If I am here for a great many years, I dare say that it will still be the most important matter that we have debated.
Tonight we are considering whether we should release people who live in a free, open and democratic country but who, instead of resorting to democracy, have chosen to resort to murder and to torture. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was quite mistaken to draw an analogy with the situation in Rhodesia, where people were not living in an open and free democracy. We are talking about people who had a choice to participate in our democracy, but turned their back on it. I have no confidence that if they are released following the passage of this Bill—when there are still many tonnes of weapons hidden in Northern Ireland and available for their use—they will not return to that path of murder and torture.

Mr. Ingram: We have had a very detailed debate following a series of detailed discussions about specific amendments. I shall deal with the fundamental point at issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. He told us that he is calling upon his party to vote against the Bill. In so doing, the Opposition are voting against the implementation of the element of the agreement with which the Bill deals—despite the fact that the agreement was negotiated by the Northern Ireland parties and endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland.
The official Opposition will be joined today only by those Northern Ireland Members who have consistently opposed the agreement. Those Northern Ireland Members are entitled to carry their opposition into the House—they, at least, have been consistent. The official Opposition claim to support the agreement yet, in voting against implementing this part of it, they will not be supported by a single Northern Ireland Member who supports the agreement. Mark this, Mr. Deputy Speaker: those who negotiated the agreement and who campaigned in Northern Ireland for its endorsement are not opposing the


measure tonight. The official Opposition have isolated themselves from those who support the agreement. Tonight they will share the Lobby only with those who voted no.
The hon. Member for Bracknell also raised the spectre of every prisoner being released before any weapons are decommissioned. We are talking about a two-year period. Other hon. Members have referred to 1995, when the Conservative Government introduced legislation as part of the process of moving forward the peace package. That legislation has resulted in the release of 240 terrorist prisoners, but not one ounce of Semtex or one bullet was handed in and not one gun was decommissioned. The Conservative Government continued with that legislation when the ceasefire had broken down and when they had the power, under the legislation, to rescind the order. They did not do so. Did the Labour party in opposition criticise them? No, we did not, because we understood the sensitivity, difficulties and complexities of moving the peace process forward.
The thrust of the Opposition spokesman's argument and the position that he and his party now adopt are based on naked political opportunism and a blatant attack on the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman puts party interest before the interests of peace; whenever he has risen to speak from the Dispatch Box—to move amendments or on Third Reading—he has attacked a Prime Minister who has given untold time and energy to putting together a peace package, who has assisted in brokering that peace package, and whose efforts brought about a massive yes vote on 22 May.
Those who campaigned for a no vote in the referendum have said that the Prime Minister conned the people of Northern Ireland. Are they saying that their constituents are easily conned and do not understand that we are dealing with a very difficult issue? Is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) the only person who can pick up the document and explain it on the doorstep to all the simple people who seem unable to read it for themselves? I have been a Northern Ireland Minister for more than a year now, and I have met many intelligent, ordinary working people. I understand what they are saying, and I know that they understand what the Government are trying to achieve. I think that they also understood that the previous Prime Minister gave his support during the referendum, and campaigned for a yes vote alongside the present Prime Minister. That was important in achieving the overwhelming yes vote on 22 May.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) set out his background—the dealings that he had when he was Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. He knows the depth and level of support that the Labour party gave previous Administrations during his time in office. That applied also to previous shadow Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. All those who have been engaged in the process know how difficult it is. They know that difficult decisions have had to be taken, and that if the wrong word is said or the wrong action taken, everything could be thrown off the rails. Everyone who has ever been engaged in these matters knows that peace is not an event but a complex process. It is not just about people voting in a referendum, or just about an agreement being signed by the parties. It is about trying to implement aspects of the agreement, taking it forward bit by bit, and linking together parts that must be linked together.
We are at the very first step of dealing with the agreement. In many ways, this Bill is the most complex piece of legislation because it strikes an essential chord in the minds and hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. We all recognise that. No one thinks that the Bill is easy. It is incredibly complex and difficult, but it rests on the integrity of Ministers to take it forward. That may be challenged by some in the House, but I doubt whether it would be challenged by the official Opposition—they have not yet stooped to that level in their criticism of Ministers.
However, another important key element is the fact that we live in a democracy where accountability applies. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power and discretion to interpret those aspects that are set forth, and to make the decisions. In dealing with the issues on which she has made a judgment, she will be held accountable to the House of Commons. Accountability comes into play once the whole package has been implemented—not just the Bill but the agreement as a whole.
I am sorry that hon. Members from Northern Ireland have made it their determined wish and will to stop the agreement.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister accept that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) voted against the Bill on Second Reading? What does he think has happened between Second Reading and Third Reading which would have induced the right hon. Gentleman, who supported the agreement and campaigned valiantly for it, to change his mind?

Mr. Ingram: I have attended all the debates on the Bill and I have not noticed the hon. Gentleman's presence very often. If he were genuinely interested in the flow of the debate, he would know that some of the amendments that have been debated were important. He would also know that some of the amendments had been brokered with the Ulster Unionist party and its leadership to deal with the difficulties that they highlighted in the Bill, and that those amendments resulted in changes to the Bill. In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the changes. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman's presence in the Chamber when the opening speech was made. I may be wrong; if the hon. Gentleman was here, clearly he has not been listening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North told the House about the support that the Labour party in opposition gave to the Conservative Government. I highlighted one good example—the 1995 Act on the early release of prisoners.
May I deal with some of the other comments that have been made in the debate? I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for his continued interest, and that of his party. He articulated some of the arguments advanced by the Liberal Democrats to try to bring about changes to the Bill. We have made a major change to the Bill to deal with the sensitive issue of victims.
I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). Because of their


long-standing interest in Northern Ireland affairs, they made telling contributions to the debate.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) was supposed to be the main spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist party in opposition to the Bill. As the debate progressed, however, other hon. Members tried to take on that mantle. He, too, seems to want to play politics with peace. He has set himself up as a "no" man, and his party decided to say no to him over the assembly. Thus his own party has cast judgment on him.
I pay tribute to the reasoned and powerful case advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who pointed out the deep dangers of cherry-picking from the agreement. He also pointed out the fundamentally flawed reasoning of the Opposition spokesman. I only hope that other right hon. and hon. Members listened to his reasoned arguments. Clearly, those who have experience in the House and deep knowledge of what has happened and can happen in Northern Ireland have listened carefully to the debate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bracknell will not get all his right hon. and hon. Friends into his Lobby this evening. He already knows one of his very experienced colleagues who has decided not to join him.

Mr. MacKay: How did the Minister vote on the prevention of terrorism Act?

Mr. Ingram: I have been asked that before. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the voting records—[Interruption.] I shall not debate with hon. Members who call from a sedentary position. I have discussed the matter in previous debates. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has put peace first and said that on this occasion his party must come second.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked who makes the judgments in this matter. As I said earlier, the initial judgment rests solely with the Secretary of State, based on the detailed advice that she will receive from a variety of sources. Clearly, we are talking about matters that cannot always be easily shared at the time with the House, or, indeed, with any hon. Members who may be interested, but, at the end of the day, once the judgment has been taken and the die is cast, the House has a right to hold the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to account for their actions. Neither of my right hon. Friends has ever shirked that. We have held ourselves accountable at the Dispatch Box on the agreement and in taking forward this Bill.
I believe that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is a genuine seeker after truth. He has probed and pushed as the Bill has progressed. I am sorry that he has not accepted the reasoning behind the legislation and what we are trying to do through it, but I hope that he will listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and that, before he enters the Lobby, he may just change his mind. If he is a genuine seeker after truth, he still has time to identify what the truth is and what the right judgment is.
The Bill has been debated in the House four times in eight days. Many right hon. and hon. Members have been present throughout and have spoken many times.

Each time those opposed to the provisions of the Bill have set out their arguments, either my right hon. Friend or I have responded. We have sought to give full answers to the questions put to us, and we have sought to explain the Bill in full. We have never ducked any question. The answers that we have given may not have been acceptable, but we have set out the reasoning behind the legislation and the difficulties associated with it.
We have accepted Opposition amendments and tabled our own amendments, based on the arguments that have been advanced. In a sense, that is not what the debate has been about. It has been about whether the British Government should seek to implement in full the Good Friday agreement. Let me leave the House in no doubt that it is my intention and that of the Government that the agreement will be implemented in full. The agreement was negotiated in good faith and will be implemented in good faith. The people of Northern Ireland voted on a complete document, and we shall implement the complete document.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 116.

Division No. 310]
[8.31 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Alexander, Douglas
Cotter, Brian


Allan, Richard
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Darvill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beard, Nigel
Denham, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dismore, Andrew


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Drew, David


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Edwards, Huw


Blears, Ms Hazel
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Fisher, Mark


Brake, Tom
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burnett, John
Galloway, George


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Gardiner, Barry


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Caton, Martin
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chaytor, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chidgey, David
Hancock, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Hewitt, Ms Patricia






Hoey, Kate
Pearson, Ian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Hoon, Geoffrey
Perham, Ms Linda


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Plaskitt, James


Howells, Dr Kim
Pollard, Kerry


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pond, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Roche, Mrs Barbara


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooney, Terry


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Ruane, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Salter, Martin


Kemp, Fraser
Savidge, Malcolm


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sawford, Phil


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Skinner, Dennis


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Linton, Martin
Soley, Clive


Livingstone, Ken
Speller, John


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Lock, David
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Love, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McAvoy, Thomas
Stinchcombe, Paul


McCabe, Steve
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Stunell, Andrew


McDonnell, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


McNamara, Kevin
Timms, Stephen


McNulty, Tony
Tipping, Paddy


Mactaggart, Fiona
Todd, Mark


McWalter, Tony
Touhig, Don


McWilliam, John
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mallaber, Judy
Vaz, Keith


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ward, Ms Claire


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Watts, David


Martlew, Eric
White, Brian


Merron, Gillian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Milburn, Alan
Willis, Phil


Mitchell, Austin
Wills, Michael


Moffatt, Laura
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Woolas, Phil


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Mudie, George
Wyatt, Derek


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)



Norris, Dan



Olner, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Greg Pope and


Organ, Mrs Diana
Ms Bridget Prentice.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Letwin, Oliver


Arbuthnot, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lidington, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beggs, Roy
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Blunt, Crispin
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brady, Graham
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brazier, Julian
MacKay, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
May, Mrs Theresa


Burns, Simon
Moss, Malcolm


Butterfill, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Page, Richard


(Chipping Barnet)
Paice, James


Chope, Christopher
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clappison, James
Paterson, Owen


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Pickles, Eric


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Prior, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Randall, John


Cran, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Duncan, Alan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Faber, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fabricant, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Flight, Howard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Forsythe, Clifford
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fraser, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
Spring, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Gibb, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Thompson, William


Greenway, John
Tredinnick, David


Grieve, Dominic
Tyrie, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Viggers, Peter


Hammond, Philip
Wardle, Charles


Hawkins, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Hayes, John
Wells, Bowen


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


Horam, John
Wilkinson, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Johnson Smith,



Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — National Institutions Measure

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the National Institutions Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Measure effects a transformation in the national institutions of the Church of England. The object is to enable them better to serve the work and mission of the Church, as reflected in parishes and dioceses throughout the land.
The origin of the Measure lies in the recommendations of the Archbishop's commission on the organisation of the Church of England, chaired by Bishop Michael Turnbull, now Bishop of Durham, which reported in 1995. The commission examined the central structures of the Church against the background of the financial difficulties then facing the Church Commissioners, from which they have now happily recovered. The assets of the commissioners have increased from £2·1 billion in 1992 to £3·5 billion in 1997.
However, the Turnbull commission found that there had been a significant loss of confidence in the Church's national organisations, which were characterised by fragmentation of effort and a committee-bound culture. There was no focal point where responsibility lay for enabling the Church to meet the challenges and the opportunities facing it. The Turnbull commission recommended the establishment of a national council to provide such a focal point. It also recommended a reform of the organisation of the Church Commissioners and a redistribution of responsibilities between them and the proposed council, with the creation of a unified staff capability to serve all the national Church bodies.
Since the Turnbull commission's report was published, the recommendations have been the subject of widespread consultation and debate in the Church, involving many people throughout all dioceses, as well as Members of this House and of another place. The process included consideration of the related recommendations of the Social Security Select Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Measure go beyond the recommendations of the Select Committee?

Mr. Bell: The Measure incorporates the Select Committee's proposals, but it derives from the report of the Bishop of Durham.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee. His consistency and firmness of purpose, and the clarity with which his Committee framed its recommendations, have been a source of enlightenment and encouragement to the Church and to me. My right hon. Friend is not with us tonight, because he has an engagement in Leeds as Minister for Welfare Reform.
The Measure provides that the Archbishops Council shall determine the application of sums made over by the Church Commissioners in accordance with mutually

agreed plans should the council or the commissioners so request. That means that the council and the Church Commissioners will be able to assure themselves that expenditure is compatible with the purposes of the commissioners' trust, in particular for the making of additional provision for the cure of souls in poor parishes. That is in clause 8.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman's and his successors' answerability to the House on such matters be affected by the transfer of responsibility?

Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated my remarks. I shall deal with that point shortly.
Clause 8 meets one of the main parliamentary concerns on the Turnbull report by ensuring that the commissioners retain ultimate control over how their income is spent. The other concerns of parliamentarians were that the balance of Church and state in the composition of the commissioners should be maintained, and that the accountability to Parliament for functions bestowed by Parliament should be protected.
The balance of Church and state in the composition of the commissioners has been maintained. The Measure provides for six state commissioners and 27 other commissioners. The accountability to Parliament has also been maintained. Indeed, that accountability has been strengthened by the appointment of a statutory audit committee with a duty to report to the state commissioners on any matter relating to the functions and business of the commissioners which causes the audit committee grave concern. That may be found in schedule 4(4)(c)(e).
The Measure provides that the commissioners are to retain their functions in respect of asset management and support for bishops and cathedrals, although any proposal to transfer any of their other functions to the council—including, most importantly, their quasi-judicial functions under the Pastoral Measure 1983—may be effected only after consultation with the Prime Minister and the commissioners, and with the agreement of the General Synod.
Any such proposal must then be laid before Parliament, and, if relating to the Pastoral Measure or allied functions under the Dioceses Measure 1978, will be subject to debate and the approval of both Houses. Any other proposal is subject to the negative procedure. That provision may be found in clause 5. There has been much concern in the Church about accountability, both to the new Archbishops Council and of the Church Commissioners. I hope that what I have already said about the commissioners will reassure right hon. and hon. Members that there will be sufficient accountability.
The Archbishops Council will have a majority of elected members. That provision is to be found in schedule 1. The archbishops will be able to appoint up to six people to the council, but the General Synod will have to approve such appointments. The Archbishops Council will require the approval of the General Synod and of the diocese in order to achieve anything at all. The autonomy of the dioceses is unaffected by the reforms.
On the council, there is a careful balance among bishops, clergy and laity. One of the benefits of the provision for appointed members is the opportunity to ensure that the necessary expertise, skills, and interests


are properly represented. There must also be regular reporting to the Synod on the work and proceedings of the council. That provision is to be found in clause 4(1).
I hope that what I have said shows the carefully balanced nature of the package before the House. The package offers many benefits to the Church. Those include the creation of the Archbishops Council, which will provide a focal point for policy and strategic thinking among the Church's national organisations. In particular, it will bring together financial and policy responsibility, which are currently separate. It will create a stronger partnership, which will evolve, between bodies that work nationally on the Church's behalf. There will be greater clarity and transparency over the apportionment of central costs and the allocation of central support. Dioceses, and through them deaneries and parishes, will be brought more effectively into decision making at the national level. The Church will thereby be helped better to respond to the challenges of mission.
When the Measure was considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, a major concern that was evident in the questions of witnesses from the Synod was the relationship between the Archbishops Council and the Church Commissioners, and, in particular, the desire to maintain through the commissioners an independent element in decision making at the central level, subject, of course, to parliamentary accountability—the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It will be seen from the committee's report that it believes that the Measure secures that objective. Members of the committee were satisfied that the Measure provides appropriate mechanisms for the various issues to be satisfactorily resolved.
The General Synod gave final approval to the Measure, with large majorities in all three houses. They may not read like football scores from the World cup, but they are significant none the less: bishops, ayes 36, noes 0; clergy, ayes 181, noes 11; laity, ayes, 175, noes 27. The Ecclesiastical Committee has also resolved that the Measure is expedient. I hope that the House will approve it.
The work and witness of the Church throughout this land should be supported by effective and accountable national institutions. This Measure should help deliver them.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It was very good to see the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) moving the motion—and from the Front Bench. That underlines the fact that he is a member of Her Majesty's Government. His sitting on the Front Bench exemplifies the very proper link between Church and state.
I should begin by declaring two interests, and by stating my position in this debate. My interests are that, since 1995, I have been an elected member of the General Synod, of which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is an ex-officio member. Since 1971, I have been a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, to which I was appointed very shortly after being elected to the House 28 years ago today. So, I have reasonably long experience of Church legislation.
My position—I must be honest with all Members—is that I was not wildly enthusiastic when the Turnbull report was first unveiled. As the hon. Member for

Middlesbrough said, the Turnbull commission was established in the wake of what one might almost call a crisis of management in the Church of England. There was great disquiet over the management of assets, and it was felt necessary to appoint a commission to look into the form and structure of the Church of England.
The commission came up with proposals which went far beyond the initial cause for concern. My initial reaction was that there was a danger that the Church was becoming too involved in introspection. I was not persuaded that all the far-reaching changes were necessary, or that they would improve the standing or enhance the mission of the established Church.
I stress that I speak as a very strong believer in the virtues of establishment. I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is entirely in accord with me on that. It is important that we maintain our national established Church. I think that it is of inestimable value that every man, woman and child in England lives in a parish of the Church of England and is entitled to the ministrations of the incumbent and to the services of the Church. I should hate to see that change.
Arch-romantic that I tend to be, I am strongly wedded to the idea of a national Church. I am an unrepentant traditional Anglican, and I have been greatly concerned for a long time by the diminished influence of the Church in many areas and in many aspects of our national life.
It seems to me that that diminution in influence has coincided with the advent of synodical government and the abandoning of our traditional liturgy, which themselves coincided with a seeming reluctance on the part of Church leaders at all levels to enunciate as unequivocally and clearly as I would like some of the unchanging verities of the Church. I happen to think that the average man and woman expects those in positions of moral authority to give clear and unambiguous guidance on the great issues of one's personal life, and to comment—perfectly legitimately—on great issues of state. I have never criticised bishops for talking about political issues, although I have sometimes hoped that they would stick more closely to religious issues.
Tonight, I want to put aside and not emphasise my initial fears and prejudices—we all have prejudices—because I willingly acknowledge that the Measure before us is in many ways different from, and better than, the original proposals of Turnbull. In that spirit, I welcome it, and I am glad to add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in commending it to the House. However, my endorsement is based on the hope that our two archbishops will be able, through their new council, to renew their authority and to give that clearer guidance about which I spoke, because it is renewal that the Church of England needs as we approach a series of significant Christian anniversaries.
We all have the millennium very much in mind, and it is important to take every opportunity to stress exactly what the millennium is about and what is at its heart—the commemoration of 2,000 years of Christianity. However, there are other anniversaries: 2008 is the 450th anniversary of the Elizabethan settlement; and 2012 is the 300th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which gave us a liturgy the like of which no other Church in the world is privileged to enjoy. With the new institutions that we are being asked to approve this evening, the aim must be to reach out, to touch and


to influence the lives and the conduct of those who are growing up in as great an ignorance of the Christian message as those to whom Wesley and Wilberforce reached out more than 200 years ago.
That is a great and a daunting task, so I trust that the Archbishops Council will not spend too much time on further restructuring and reorganisation. However, I hope that it will give careful consideration to making Synod more what it ought to be—the true representative voice of the Anglican in the pew.
The reason for my saying that, and for my slightly critical earlier comments about Synod, is a simple one: I do not believe that General Synod is really representative of the ordinary Anglican in the pew. I believe that for one reason above all others: there is a very small electorate. I should like everyone who is on the electoral roll of any church in the Church of England to be eligible to vote for his or her synodical representative. That would bring a new interest and a new legitimacy to General Synod, and it is a matter which I hope the Archbishops Council will consider.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman, whom I am pleased to call a friend in every circumstance other than the parliamentary, will use his influence to persuade the council to look into that issue. It is important and it needs to be addressed early. I hope too that he will forgive me for making those comments rather than merely following him. He gave us a lucid and admirable exposition of the Measure and outlined its provisions, so I am merely highlighting a few points.

Mr. David Drew: I very much support the hon. Gentleman's idea of opening out the electorate, but does he agree that one reason why that electorate and Church rolls have declined of late is the mismanagement of the Church Commissioners in recent times? So many benefices have had to be combined because of lack of cash. If nothing else, the Measure will, I hope, lead to streamlining, and will concentrate minds on what really needs to happen. The Church needs to be run efficiently as well as with the proper Christian basis.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that, and I am sympathetic to the thrust of his thinking, but without wishing to offend him in any way, I must say that he has telescoped a few things.
Until the unfortunate blip occasioned, perhaps, by an injudicious emphasis on investing in property at a particularly unfortunate time, the record of the Church Commissioners in managing the assets of the Church of England was quite good. We do not face some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, such as the amalgamation of benefices and so forth, because of bad management by the commissioners over a long period. There has been a decline in vocations, and we have to deal with many issues.
I cannot think that the House will divide on this Measure. I sincerely hope that it will not—it might be embarrassing if it did, given the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, so I trust that the Government payroll vote is on hand if needed. Let us use the passing of this Measure to give a new emphasis and sense of direction to the Church of England. Let us give the Archbishops Council every support and encouragement, but let us also point it in certain directions.
That was very much at the back of the minds of many of my colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee who took part in the questioning. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough said, and the report shows, they expressed certain concerns about the relationship of the council to the commissioners. They stressed the need to maintain an independent element in decision making at national level and one that was subject to parliamentary accountability.
That was expressed particularly clearly in the three points put forward by and quoted in the document before us this evening by the Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He has made such a signal contribution to the Church of England, and we very much miss him this evening, although we fully understand that his ministerial duties prevent his being here. He has been a doughty champion of the establishment and of proper parliamentary accountability.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough symbolises that accountability, and comes before the House—not perhaps as often as I would like, but that is not his fault—to answer questions regularly and reasonably frequently. His very presence and his being here to do that emphasise the national nature of the Church of England.
I do not want to detain the House, and I understand that other hon. Members would like to contribute briefly—I hope that they will do so—so I shall conclude by saying that, whatever misgivings some of us may have had, let us put those behind us and look upon this as a new opportunity for the Church of England. Let us use it to the best possible advantage by giving the Archbishops Council every possible support.
At the head of the Church of England, under Her Majesty the Queen, we have two extremely talented men in the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was plunged into the job but has grown into it, and the Archbishop of York, who is a representative of what he calls "the other integrity"—we have tensions within the Church of England, and it must be representative of both integrities. The two are working together extremely constructively—may they do so even more through the council. I wish the Measure parliamentary approval, and Godspeed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for the way in which he presented the Measure, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the way in which he responded—it demonstrated, as I said at the Ecclesiastical Committee, the importance and validity of the adaptation of the rules for Church Measures.
For all the faults of the system—they were acknowledged by many members of the Synod—I believe that it is better that the Synod should take the early stages of legislation, so that we avoid having Second Reading and Committee stage in the House of Commons and in another place.
The Ecclesiastical Committee has sometimes—although not in this case—taken too long to decide whether a Measure is expedient. I share the views of successive archbishops and others in the Church of England, but I believe that moving to a synodical method has, on balance, proved better than retaining all stages of consideration in Parliament. However,


that depends on the good will and the ability of hon. Members and Members of another place to understand that compromise means, at best, agreement.
In the presentation to the meeting of the Parliaments, which is fully recorded in the report, and in the Ecclesiastical Committee, those who seemed to discuss the residual issues that Members of Parliament wanted to raise did a service both to the Church of England and to this country. It is important that those people—I am not one—who have doubts about improvement, change and adaptation, should be fully heard, but it is reasonable to expect others who think that some of the doubts and arguments are wrong to meet them halfway. That is part of the notion of compromise, on which I put some store.
My declaration is that I tried, both in a by-election and in a general election, to be elected to Synod, and failed—I am a member of the General Synod, failed. To balance that, I spent some years as a trustee of Christian Aid and, for a time, served as the chairman of the Church of England Children's Society, which overlaps with the established parts of the Church of England, even though it is not one.
I believe that we need to learn from those from outside our Churches—I try to describe myself as a Christian (Anglican), rather than say that being Anglican is more important. I believe that perhaps the most significant change in the 23 years during which I have had the privilege of serving in the House is that the Churches have come together in a way that is remarkable, somewhat unexpected, and a result of the deliberate efforts of many people in the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and the free Churches.
I pay tribute to the leaders of each of the denominations—they deserve more credit than they are usually given. Many matters that are beyond the usual realms of the Church and that spread into politics owe something to the insight and perspiration—as well as the inspiration—of our leaders.
The Measure deals with issues that one might call Church management of resources and assets—it does not in any way represent a substitute for our responsibilities on spiritual leadership. The leadership comes not only from archbishops and bishops, but from the laity and those who are ordained as deacons and priests. The Measure will help them to concentrate on bringing together—and bringing in—those who regard themselves as members of the Church and those who usually do not.
I mention two events that have made an impression on me in recent years. The first occurred in my previous constituency of Eltham. When six teenagers tragically died in a car crash, the local vicar opened his church, which provided the children's contemporaries with a sense of congregation and an opportunity to express their grief. It was plain that about half the young people at one of the memorial services had never had to open a hymn book, let alone a prayer book. That illustrates the failure of those of us who take seriously the work of the Church.
The second event that affected me was when James Noble, who represents, and created, the group known as A Company of Speakers said that, when the Japanese prisoner-of-war camp in which he had suffered was liberated and the guards had gone, an Australian chaplain got into the stand where the commandant used to stand, and said, not that it was a matter for celebration but that people had a second chance to start doing something with their lives.
That is roughly equivalent to the challenge that William Temple issued in Oxford in the 1930s, when he asked what people intended to do with their lives, and not only in their work and with their families. He asked what would really matter most if and when people had the chance to know in advance that they were about to die, and whether they had done things that required some sacrifice and understanding and were for the greater good; that is one part—not the only part—of the Christian message. It is part of the nonconformist and the established traditions, and part of the universal Church, which is what the Roman Catholics would lay claim to.
For all that to happen, there needs to be a system of Church use of resources, and that is where the Measure comes in. We in Parliament need to understand that, if a Measure has the overwhelming, if not unanimous, support of the bishops, the clergy and the laity, we need to have extremely strong reasons to challenge their decisions. We should not allow anything through on the nod, and we should pay attention, but we should also understand that those who came to bear witness or to answer questions deserve respect. I want to thank those people for the preparation and the presentation that they have offered us.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the very kind remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). There is no greater honour in the House than to call an hon. Member from an opposing party a friend. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's friendship, which I have enjoyed for many years, since I first became a Member of Parliament. He said that it is 28 years to the day since he came into the House, and 18 June 1970 is also engraved in my memory: I flew all the way back from New York to see a Labour victory, and when the first results came in, I turned off the television and went to bed. I slept soundly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): You missed all the fun.

Mr. Bell: In fact, the fun began after the election. I remember the day as though it were yesterday.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke pertinently and eloquently, and I congratulate him on his speech about the relationship between Church and state. He said that I am at the Dispatch Box not because it is a convenient place to rest my notes but because there is a firm, strong, definable relationship between Church and state. He mentioned the established Church, and said that I was firmly in favour of it, and that the Prime Minister had made it known clearly that it is not his or the Government's intention to take any step in any other direction. It is appropriate to put that on the record tonight, and for it to appear in Hansard.
The Measure is the Church's response to the need for change and modernisation. That important point was touched on by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who also made an interesting contribution, on which I congratulate him. He talked about Churches coming together and the ecumenical and inclusive nature of the Church. The Measure shows the Church coming to terms with the modern age. It is implementing the modernisation and change that the Government welcome and want to bring about.


The Church is doing that for itself, so there is no need for any move towards disestablishment to introduce modernisation or change, because the Measure represents the change in the direction of the millennium to which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire referred.
We read a lot in the newspapers about negative elements of the Church. The controversial elements appear day in and day out, but the Church is a confident Church, with a confident message that has stood the test of 2000 years. The hon. Member for Worthing, West mentioned Archbishop Temple's views in the 1930s, and the values of that time are as pertinent today as they were then. In this confident Church of ours in 1997, ordinations were up for the third year running, covenanted giving went up to more than £6 a person, and, while 24 churches were made redundant, 23 opened, excluding the new informal congregations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Church is strong enough to take on the chin headlines claiming that training budgets are overstretched, which is merely another way of saying that more people than expected have come forward for ordination? I hope that he will also convey the House's good wishes to the Lambeth conference—perhaps it should be called the Canterbury conference—when bishops from all over the world will come together for their 10-yearly gathering.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am sure that his remarks will be noted by the Lambeth conference, which will, as he says, open in Canterbury. The fact that the Lambeth conference takes place in Canterbury is in the nature of our business.
The Measure represents a new opportunity to go forward with confidence and focus. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Church has broad shoulders, as do the Church Commissioners who have to respond to the weekend press. I said, almost frivolously, that they had to do so day in and day out, but although that is not so, we must live with controversy, constant attacks and constant carping. We should remember the facts that I have given the House, which record the way in which the Church is moving forward towards the millennium, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said.
I welcome the consensus that we have heard tonight, which will be of great encouragement to the Church, and to the Synod when it meets in July. Our unanimous view, as the hon. Gentleman said, is that the Measure has a good wind behind it. Godspeed to it. I hope that this day will begin a new era in relationships for the Church, and new structures in which the dioceses, the Synod, the laity and all those who believe in the Church's doctrines and teachings can come together with a sense of confidence.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Institutions Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Orders of the Day — Civic Amenities Sites (Northumberland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am glad to be able to raise a matter of considerable concern to my constituents, and grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to my remarks, and those of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who may wish to take part in the debate. I realise that Thursday nights are not popular with Ministers who have to attend Adjournment debates, and I shall be as quick as I can.
The background to the debate is a decision by Northumberland county council to close nine of its 15 civic amenities sites as a means of saving £400,000 a year. That decision will cause problems to residents of Northumberland, and it poses the threat of fly tipping to the landscape of a county that is one of the most beautiful in the United Kingdom. To ensure that my argument is fully understood, let me say that what we mean by "civic amenities sites" are the tips where people take rubbish in the back of their cars. They can dump large items of furniture, garden waste and other things that dustbin collectors will not take away.
Northumberland decided on the cut as a panic measure following the Government's decision to loot the budgets of rural shire counties in England and Wales so that they could switch the money to suburban and urban areas. Despite denials from Ministers that that is so, the fact of that raid on the budgets of shire counties is confirmed by Unison in its newly published document, "Financing our future: putting the case for a fair deal for local councils", in which it lists 19 local authorities in crisis. Thirteen of them are rural shire counties, including Northumberland, which, unusually, is Labour-controlled.
Before the election, the Labour party trumpeted its plans to attack the funding of Westminster and Wandsworth councils as part of its "soak the rich" policy, while at the same time planning this raid on rural shire counties. Northumberland was the worst victim of that. As it happened, despite the cuts in their budget, Westminster and Wandsworth both set the lowest council tax levels in this country. In fact, Wandsworth cut its council tax level by 25 per cent. It is illustrative to note that, in Wandsworth, people living in a band D house pay £322 a year—that is in an affluent part of Greater London—while in Northumberland, council tax payers in an equivalent band of house pay between £812 and £833, so one can see the difference.
I could allow myself a certain wry smile at that because, in previous years, when the Conservatives were in government, every year that Northumberland county council received a rise well in excess of inflation, it used to complain that it was not enough. The local authority's public relations machine went into action to fill residents with horrors about cuts. I remember one local newspaper talking about all school meals being axed because of Conservative Government cuts. However, in the first year of this Government, Northumberland county council has received its worst-ever settlement—0·39 per cent., which was the worst of any local authority.
Three issues emerge from this decision. The first is whether the action by Northumberland county council in closing the nine sites is illegal. If it is not illegal, it is


certainly against the spirit of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which says that civic amenity sites—tips—should be reasonably accessible to the people whom they are intended to serve.
The second point that emerges is that there is no real saving, certainly not for council tax payers. Although the decision may clear £400,000 from Northumberland county council's budget, it adds costs to all the district authorities, which are now having to put in different schemes to avoid a rash of fly tipping throughout the county. The third important issue that emerges is that there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Environment Agency. In the agency itself, there appears to be some confusion about the regulations that surround the manning and operation of civic amenity sites.
Northumberland is a sparse county. It has a small population, which is widely scattered. For example, the closure of the civic amenity site at Haltwhistle means a round trip of 30 miles for people who live in that town to dump rubbish in the site at Hexham. In Allendale Town, it means a 20-mile round trip to dump rubbish. In West Woodburn, the area of the north Tyne, again, it means a further 20 miles. One of the larger settlements in my constituency, Ponteland, which has more than 11,000 inhabitants, has also lost its tip. That means that those people now face a round trip of around 15 miles to dump rubbish. How on earth can that be called "reasonably accessible", as required by the Environmental Protection Act?
As a result of the closures, there has already been a rise in the amount of fly tipping in the county. In particular, farmers have complained that they are the ones who are having to pick up the bill for illegal tipping on their land.
Local councils, particularly Tynedale district council in my constituency, are looking at alternative schemes to make good the shortfall that has been created by the county council. They have a system of putting amenity skips in parishes throughout their area, all of which will be costly to operate. Therefore, the county council's decision has simply transferred the cost from its budget to council tax payers through district council rates. Council tax payers are getting a double whammy out of this decision.
I move to the third point: the difference between the Government and the Environment Agency on the question of how the tips are operated. One of the points that I made in a letter to the Minister when the decision was first announced, was that it seemed that the rules and regulations that apply to the manning of rural tips were excessive.
For example, a tip such as the one that has been closed in Allendale should not require staffing every hour that it is open. It is a rural area in the north Pennines. The risk of vandalism or of dangerous chemicals being deposited must be low. The Minister gave some comfort in her letter to me in February that the Department was considering revising the guidance given to the Environment Agency about that but the agency subsequently said that it would under no circumstances allow any tip to be unmanned in any area. In a letter to me, it made it clear that it believes that there are risks in having unmanned tips.
Citing the risks show how ridiculous they are when applied to rural areas. Tips could be set on fire. People could put engine oil, asbestos or lead acid batteries into

them if they were unsupervised. Sites could be subject to scavenging by totters. For sites in one of the most remote parts of the United Kingdom, the Allen valley, that is extraordinary.
While in urban areas there could be such risks, in rural areas they would be minor. There would be a chance to catch any dangerous chemicals when the rubbish was resorted at the waste transfer station. There is a risk of car batteries being dumped into skips on civic amenity sites. It is better to take such a risk when the waste would end up in a properly designed landfill site than to risk allowing it to end up in a ditch or water course in a wood or behind a hedge. The confusion should be sorted out by the Minister. There should be scope for rural sites to have less frequent staffing. There are opportunities for video surveillance of sites. Physical barriers can be installed to stop trade waste being left by builders with lorries if there is a particular worry about that.
Ironically, while the Environment Agency nationally says that it will not countenance such arrangements, locally, where it has to cope with the legacy of the problem, it has been running around advising my local council that it is all right to put amenity skips in rural villages which would be equally vulnerable to having illegal waste discharged into them. It suggests that parish councils should assist in policing skips to prevent abuse. It is ridiculous to expect parish councillors to stand guard over amenity skips while saying that fixed sites in other rural communities need to be staffed whenever they are open. The mere fact of staffing put up the cost to Northumberland county council and was one of the reasons why it decided to make the cut.
I urge the Minister to intervene with Northumberland county council to point out that no one could say that a 30-mile round trip made a site reasonably accessible. I want her to put pressure on the Environment Agency to sort out the guidance and regulations that affect the manning and running of civic amenity sites. I want her to tell the Environment Agency to reconsider the possibility of allowing some rural sites to be unmanned for some of the week so that they are available for local people to use and the threat of dumping rubbish, litter and dangerous chemicals in the county of Northumberland is reduced.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has secured this debate, and I agree with his plea for something to be done. I do not think that Northumberland county council realised what outrage would be engendered in the rural parts of the county by the closure of the tips. In Wooler and Seahouses, this has aroused more fury, and given rise to more campaigning, than almost any local issue I can remember for a long time—especially now that people are becoming ever more conscious of the environment.
The distances involved for my constituents are even greater than those referred to by the hon. Member for Hexham. People going from the Wooler and Seahouses areas to Berwick face a 40-mile round trip, which does not constitute reasonable accessibility under the terms of the Act. They have to go to Berwick or a place south of Alnwick to find their facilities. That is too far to expect people to travel; every car journey involves the burning of fossil fuel, thereby adding to pollution of the environment. Fly tipping follows in the areas of the tips and elsewhere, and it is Berwick borough council and the district councils which have to pick up the costs.


The background to the problem concerns the financial position of the county council. The problems did not begin with the present Government; for the past seven years, the county has had adverse local government settlements—although the Labour leader of the county council has written to me pointing out that this year's settlement, from this Government, is the worst of any to date. I hope that the message will go back from Ministers dealing with those problems that Northumberland county council has been left in an unreasonable financial position.
However, none of that excuses this decision, with all its consequences. When I suggested to the Minister some weeks ago that she try to help, she responded by saying that the Environment Agency should reconsider its approach to the manning of tips—that was her opinion expressed in a parliamentary answer. Since then, the agency has thrown out her suggestion, claiming that it could not contemplate such a change. In a letter to me, the agency stated that it would be unacceptable to have unmanned tips.
I find this attitude obscurantist and mistaken. I am fortunate to live within half a mile of a waste transfer station. When I have bulky waste, it is not difficult to take it there, but when I go at weekends, I never see the man managing the tip, because he is busy inside the building sorting materials with his bulldozer. I just deposit my rubbish—paper, metals or whatever—in the appropriate receptacle. I do not see him, he does not see me. He is doing a useful job, but it is not necessary for him to be there the moment someone arrives at the site.
There needs to be some flexibility in rural areas—some means of ensuring that facilities are not completely withdrawn just because it is impossible to provide a Rolls-Royce service in every remote community. The real problem is that people make decisions at their desks in London or Leeds on the basis of what works in urban areas, without considering what happens in rural areas.
Now that the Environment Agency has thrown the idea back at the Minister, I must ask her what options she is going to encourage. I submit that the tips can be run unmanned, or manned only part time with supervision only at certain times of the day; or they could be opened only on certain days of the week.
Our tips used to be scavenged by totters, who did quite a bit of constructive recycling. Indeed, more recycling was carried out by the totters than goes on under the more bureaucratic current arrangements—they had uses for many of the materials deposited. The only danger was that a person could tip a load into a skip without realising that there was someone else in it at the time—I have known that to happen. Still, they performed a useful recycling function.
Another option is that the authority should develop the sites constructively with occasional manning, given the latitude to do so, and with more sorting and more recycling. People campaigning to get the tips reopened are keen to participate in a scheme that would increase the amount of recycling, thereby reducing the county's landfill bill. It would be far better if the tips were practically organised in a way suited to rural areas, and that ensured that more recyclable material was actually recycled and less went into landfill. That would result in the payment of less landfill tax.
I plead with the Minister to help us to persuade the county council to apply itself to a solution; to persuade the Environment Agency not to stand in the way; and to help us find an answer to what has become a very difficult problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate. The subject is clearly of great local concern and raises important issues.
I shall begin by outlining the legislative background to the matter. A number of controls are in place to ensure that waste is managed safely and recovered or disposed of without harming human health or the environment. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, the main controls are set out in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which fulfils the UK's obligations under the amended European framework directive on waste. As one can see from the date of the Act, those arrangements were formulated under the previous Administration.
Under section 51 of the Act, the county council, as a waste disposal authority, has a duty to arrange
for places to be provided at which persons resident in the area may deposit their household waste
and to ensure that those so-called civic amenity sites are—as was mentioned in the debate—"reasonably accessible". Clearly, that means that they must be within the area of the authority responsible, be open at all reasonable times and be available for residents to deposit their waste free of charge. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether the council's action is legal, I have to tell him that the definition of reasonably accessible is a matter for the courts. He may want to pursue that.
The Environment Agency is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the licensing system, and I have no reason to suspect that Northumberland county council is not fulfilling its statutory duty. However, as I said, the definition of reasonably accessible is crucial in that instance. The Act does not stipulate what is reasonable in terms of the number and location of civic amenity sites to be provided. That is quite properly a matter for the county council to determine, which the Government would not want rigidly to dictate at national level, partly because of the fact, which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned, that local circumstances can differ. It is difficult to make hard and fast rules that apply to every civic amenity site in every location, whether it is in an area of rural sparsity or the middle of a bustling urban conurbation. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that needs can vary in those different places.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will appreciate that neither I nor my Department has powers to intervene and dictate what is reasonable provision in any given area and would not want to do so. We therefore have no plans to issue guidance on the matter. I am sure that my Department could come to a view on the matter, but it would have no particular legal


force, since the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. We need to be wary of encouraging central Government to make such arbitrary rulings.
I understand and have considerable sympathy with those bodies and individuals, including the hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who have written to my Department and the Environment Agency expressing concern about the possible effects of the closing of nine of the 15 local civic amenity sites that were being operated by Northumberland county council, such as the ones in Allendale, Wooler and Seahouses. However, I am informed that the remaining six still take over 15,000 tonnes of waste per annum, which is more than 50 per cent. of the total civic amenity site waste in the county and that the hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed each have two sites in their respective constituencies.
The hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have pointed out some of the difficulties that closure of sites has caused people, particularly those in rural areas, in their constituencies and the area of the county council. I understand that the county council has met the district councils in the area with a view to determining how their collection services may be further utilised to ameliorate the effects of the closures. From those discussions, it has been confirmed that the closures are temporary, which may represent a little light at the end of the tunnel.
The Environment Agency has already been understanding in its enforcement of the regulations, so I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham will realise that there is a little more flexibility than he might have imagined. Since the publication of statutory guidance in waste management paper 4 in 1994 regarding the operation of civic amenity sites, a phased programme to enforce compliance was agreed with Northumberland to facilitate the adjustment to the new regulatory demands.
In addition, a number of options have been suggested by Environment Agency regional staff to assist Northumberland in the provision of civic amenity facilities sites. Those include charging for use by commercial customers to offset part of the cost of operating the site; part-time opening, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed suggested, to reduce operational costs; and the provision of amenity skips, which the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned in his contribution.
I understand that the agency has written to Tynedale district council, for example, regarding the placing of publicly accessible amenity skips in each of its parishes. If certain precautionary measures are undertaken, the agency would allow such a scheme to proceed. Similarly, mobile collection vehicles could be provided, as they are in other rural areas.
My Department and the Environment Agency are also considering the possibility of unstaffed civic amenity sites. Whatever the local office might have told the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, those are under consideration.
Current statutory guidance in waste management paper 4, to which the Environment Agency is required to have regard in the discharge of its licensing functions, states that
the licensee"—
of civic amenity sites—
should have the site manned during opening hours".
Recent consultation on the subject raised the question whether the particular needs of rural and remote areas make the cost of staffing civic amenity sites disproportionately high for small sites, and force their closure.
There are still outstanding issues raised by the Environment Agency about possible public health implications arising from untended equipment, vandalism, arson and the disposal of potentially hazardous waste at such unmanned sites. Perhaps a car acid battery would not create a major problem, but asbestos might. Such issues require careful consideration, which the Environment Agency is undertaking.
It may be possible, for example, to provide the agency with the discretion to license unmanned civic amenity sites in rural or remote areas where, in its view, the environment and public health could best be protected by the provision of such sites. That raises the question of balance, which the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned in relation to fly tipping. Aspects such as capacity and numbers of skips, the types of waste and the frequency of collection of waste would have to be taken into account.
Before we proceed with any such revision, it is important that we are satisfied that its terms will provide adequate protection to the environment and human health. However, I am anxious to conclude the issue as quickly as possible, and we hope to make a final decision on any revision of waste management paper 4 soon.
I understand the concern about possible increases in fly tipping. I can confirm that Northumberland county council and its contractor remain obligated under the waste management licence provisions for the closed sites and their environs. They must therefore deal with fly-tipped rubbish there. More generally, the responsibility for monitoring illegal tipping, clearance of the wastes involved and pursuing offenders lies with a number of organisations, including local authorities, the police and the Environment Agency.
The Environment Agency is continuing to monitor the situation closely throughout the country, not just in Northumberland, and is working with local authorities to monitor and control fly tipping and prosecute offenders. An emergency hotline number, which I shall give the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen so that they can issue it to their constituents when the need arises—0800 607080—has been established and widely published so that vehicles and individuals involved in fly tipping can be reported.
When the landfill tax was introduced, it was accepted that it would cause local authorities extra costs in the disposal of household waste. The hon. Member for Hexham will remember that, as the tax was introduced by the previous Administration, whom he supported.
It is, however, important that councils should have the same encouragement as businesses to look for more sustainable ways of dealing with their waste—to look


at the whole life cycle issues of waste, not just deal with the initial problem. When the local government finance settlement for 1996–97 was made, the previous Administration claimed that the extra costs of the landfill tax had been "taken into account" in the settlement.
In his March Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the landfill tax would be increased from £7 per tonne to £10 per tonne from April 1999. The delay in the increase is intended to allow local authorities and others to budget for the extra costs; clearly, discussions with local government on the financial settlement for 1999–2000 will need to cover the extra costs imposed by the tax.
The hon. Member for Hexham will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently issued a consultation paper on the future waste strategy, entitled "Less Waste, More Value." In that, we floated suggestions for possible improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of current grant arrangements for local government waste management services. For example, we raised the idea of a possible change to a system whereby districts—as waste collection authorities—receive grant in support of waste management, and are charged by counties' waste disposal authorities on the basis of tonnage of waste delivered for disposal. Government encouragement for public-private partnerships is also available, for example, in the form of private finance initiative credits, and we shall consider how such investment, for example, in new recycling facilities, perhaps in supra-district facilities for the disposal of rubbish in a more environmentally sensitive way, could be developed. Hon. Members need to bear in mind the forthcoming landfill directive from the European Union, which will force a change in the way that rubbish is disposed of.
The consultation document makes it clear that we are concerned about the risk of increased waste transport. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to point out that there is an environmental cost when waste is transported long distances by road. Local authorities should think carefully about the full range of implications of their decisions on waste, not just the initial cost and the direct impact on the environment of waste disposal, but factors such as emissions from transport of waste in council lorries. "Less Waste, More Value" also recognises the importance of encouraging households to think carefully about what they throw out, and about how their patterns of consumption can lead to increased waste.
One possible way of making households more aware of their environmental impact is to legislate to allow councils to charge for waste collection and disposal on the basis of the amount that each household throws out, instead of including the cost in the council tax, as at present. However, that type of scheme would work only if households had real alternatives for dealing with their waste—in particular, local recycling facilities, or even separate collection of recyclable materials.
Of course we realise that recycling poses particular challenges in rural areas, and we are also interested in ideas such as scrap schemes, which are a slightly more organised version of the totter that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned.
We need to look long and hard at any proposals for rural areas, to ensure that they are fair, especially for families with children and for poorer households. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham on obtaining tonight's debate, and I hope that I have been able to give him some reassurances on this especially worrisome issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.